Chapter 1 Introduction FY11 

FOREST PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT 

SALMON - CHALLIS NATIONAL FOREST 

Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

FY 11 

INTRODUCTION 

The FY 11 Forest Plan Monitoring Report is a summary of FY 11. It provides background 

information, interpretation, and analysis for the many monitoring items described in the 

Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the Salmon National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and the Frank Church River of No Return 

Management Plan. Many monitoring items do not have additional information to report 

because the forest service either has moved to a different monitoring process or the 

monitoring item is not applicable any more. Monitoring data was collected for several 

monitoring items in past years that was not required and has been discontinued. 

BACKGROUND 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) are part of the long-range 

direction process established by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). 

Forest Plans provide guidance for balancing the physical, biological, social, political and 

organizational components of Forest management in the form of goals, objectives, 

standards and guidelines. 

Monitoring provides the decision-maker, Forest Service employees, local customers, the 

Regional and Washington Offices of the Forest Service, and Congress, with information 

on our progress in implementing the Forest Plans and assessing whether they work as 

intended. 

The Challis National Forest Plan was approved in 1987. The Salmon Plan followed in 

1988. In 1995, the Salmon and Challis Forests were combined and administered as one 

unit. In 2000, the two Forests were formally integrated into the Salmon-Challis National 

Forest, however until the Forest Plans are revised, the forests must follow the guidance 

provided in their respective plans. 

There have been several monitoring reports since the two Forest Plans were approved. 

The first report in 1995 was comprehensive in scope covering each resource area 

described in the two plans. Activities for the individual monitoring items were shown for 

each year and evaluated in narrative form. Any monitoring items recommended to be 

discontinued were dropped from further reporting. The second report followed in 1996 

following the same format incorporating the 1996 information, only with much fewer 

monitoring items to report. The 1997 report was in a pamphlet format that described 

Forest accomplishments and news items organized by Ranger District. The years 1998 

and 1999 were combined in the next report with a different approach by focusing on six 

primary issues. This report made recommendations on how the two Forest Plans were 

rapidly becoming outdated and needing revision to capture new issues, new directions, 

and new public demands. The 2000/2001 report primarily focused on the fires of 2000 

and the Forest’s accomplishments in many rehabilitation efforts and the new National 

Fire Plan direction. 

This report provides an account of the management activities specifically for Fiscal Year 

2011. Each monitoring item for resource areas is described as stated in the Forest 

Plans, Wilderness Plan and Middle Fork and Salmon Wild and Scenic River Plan. 

Introduction - i 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction FY11 

TYPES OF FOREST PLAN MONITORING 

Forest Plan monitoring involves gathering information and observing management 

activities to document actions and effects on the Forest. The three primary reasons for 

monitoring Forest Plans are implementation, effectiveness and validation. A brief 

description of each follows: 

Implementation Monitoring – “Did we do what we said we were going to do?” 

Within the framework of Forest planning, implementation monitoring can determine 

whether plans, prescriptions, projects, or activities were conducted as specified, and 

whether those actions were in compliance with Forest Plan or project plan direction, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. 

In the absence of formal administrative review, implementation monitoring on the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest is most commonly conducted by designated specific 

project administrators such as a range conservationist or minerals specialist, who verify 

compliance with specified Best Management Practices and site-specific mitigation 

criteria through regular onsite project inspections. Additionally, a number of selected 

projects are scheduled for interdisciplinary team review every year, usually on major 

Forest activities such as timber sales, range allotments and mining. 

Effectiveness Monitoring – “Did the management practice do what we wanted it to do?” 

Effectiveness monitoring determines whether or not management practices, as designed 

and executed, are effective in meeting Forest Plan standards, goals and objectives. 

Examples of effectiveness monitoring operations conducted on the Salmon-Challis 

National Forest includes both short and long-term water quality sampling and analysis; 

long-term streambank stability; soil compaction and riparian vegetation monitoring. 

Validation Monitoring – “Are the goals and objectives set by the Forest Plan valid?” 

Validation monitoring determines whether the data and assumptions used in the 

development of the Forest Plan are correct. 

HOW TO READ THIS REPORT 

We have labeled our monitoring results for this report into three categories. Each 

monitoring item has a number and a prefix which indicates in which category it belongs. 

The categories are: 

Forest Plan requirement items are prefixed with “FP”; 

Baseline items are prefixed with “BL”; and 

Additional items which we feel are worthy of tracking are prefixed with “TR”. 

All monitoring items follow the same report format. Below is a sample of the general 

format, explaining the information provided for each item. 

Format and Instructions for Displaying Monitoring Information 

Monitoring Item Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

Item # Specific activity that 

was measured 

How often monitoring 

is done 

When adjustments should be 

proposed 

Monitoring Types: 

Implementation – “Did we do what we said we were going to do?” 

Introduction - ii 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction FY11 

Effectiveness – “Did the management practice do what we wanted it to do?” 

Validation – “Are the goals and objectives set by the Forest Plan valid?” 

Baseline – “What is the basis for future comparisons?” 

Tracking – “What additional activities are we performing?” 

Data Source: List specific report or method of data compilation. 

Unit of Measure: (e.g., MMBF, acres, parts per million, etc.) 

Findings: Data includes narrative, table and/or graphs. 

Variability: Compare predicted performance with actual performance. Were limits 

exceeded? Where? How far? State reasons for variability, if known. 

Evaluation: Evaluation of the data. Explain how new information and changes in 

conditions could be incorporated into planning. Discuss direction and trends if a five-year 

report is presented. Note corrections to existing Plan. Identify the need to change 

management practices, implementation strategies, goals, standards and guidelines. 

Appropriateness: Express the need to continue monitoring this item and determine the 

level of need (mandatory, high, medium, low or discontinue monitoring). 

If any errors or misinterpretations were discovered during the review process corrections 

were made where appropriate and an explanation is provided. Most commonly this 

situation occurred in describing the Units of Measure or Data Source. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM 

Resource Responsible Individual 

Air Quality Fritz Cluff 

Budget Shirley Kelley 

Facilities Jennifer Brady 

Fire Fritz Cluff 

Fisheries Bruce Smith 

FOIA Mardi Rhodes 

Heritage Tim Canaday 

Insect and Disease Lynn Bennett 

Lands Trish Callaghan 

Minerals Russ Bjorkland 

Range Faith Ryan 

Recreation/Wilderness Trish Callaghan 

Research/Natural Areas Trish Callaghan 

Soils Dave Deschaine 

Timber Lynn Bennett 

Visual Resource Trish Callaghan 

Water Dave Deschaine 

Wildlife/MIS Jennifer Purvine 

Monitoring Report Project Coordinator – Ken Rodgers, NEPA Team Leader 

Introduction - iii 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

AIR QUALITY: Standards and Guidelines 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 

Comply with State, 

Federal Air Quality 

Standard, Clean Air 

Act 

Each burn 

Any adverse public reaction; smoke 

in inhabited area or exceeds 

Federal Standards of inhalable 

particulate matter (PM-10) no 

greater than 150 μg/m3 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Prescribed Burn Plans, Fire Dispatch 

Unit of Measure: Acres burned 

Findings: 

Prescribed burns: 2011 - 8,720 acres 

Variability: The Forest consults with the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group on 

prescribed burns. Idaho DEQ is a member of this airshed group. Prior to initiating each 

days prescribed burn, permission is requested by the Forest to the Airshed Group and 

they advise us on whether we can burn or not, depending on current airshed conditions. 

Evaluation: Compliance is based on feedback from the surrounding communities, as 

well as the Airshed Group. We have been in compliance and have received no 

complaints from localities in and around Salmon in five years. Smoke direction and 

dispersal is monitored by someone on site at each prescribed burn to ensure smoke 

dispersal is staying within prescription of mixing height and wind direction anticipated. 

Idaho DEQ does have an air quality monitor near the city of Salmon; the monitor has not 

exceeded DEQ standards due to prescribed fire in FY 11. 

Appropriateness: Continue at current level to meet the legal requirements and 

continue to rely on Montana/Idaho Airshed Group and local monitoring. 

Air Quality - 1 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Aviation: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWAviation 

1. Airstrip use and trend: 

Number of aircraft landing 

Type of aircraft landing 

(commercial and private) 

Number of people per 

party Types of use 

supported by aircraft 

2. Landing strip Safety 

Inspection report ratings 

Annually 

Forest Service airstrips 

provide public and 

commercial use within 

acceptable limits 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Voluntary registration and inspections 

Unit of Measure: Qualitative and quantitative evaluation and interpretation 

Findings: 

Year 

# 

Entries 

Type of Flight Twin 

Engine 

Purpose of Flight 

Prvt Com Adm Boat Fish Hunt Oth. 

Rec T&G Adm Other 

2011 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Aviation - 2 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

BUDGET: Receipt Shares to Counties 

Monitoring Item Activity to Be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which 

Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Receipt Shares to 

Counties Annually Not Applicable 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan
 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: Reports from Regional Office, National Forest Receipts, and Idaho Public 

Lands Report. 

FY 2011 information came from report ASR 10-02 requested from Budget and Finance 

Albuquerque Service Center. 

Unit of Measure: Dollars
 

Findings: 

Salmon and Challis National Forests 

COMBINED RECEIPT SHARES TO COUNTIES (Dollars)
 

Year Idaho Blaine Butte Clark Custer Lemhi Valley Total 

2011 114,708 640 163,533 1,705 1,470,265 2,030,154 67,924 3,848,929 

In 2001 the Forest Service changed the way it handled payments to States for both the 

twenty-five percent fund and the PILT funds. These figures are no longer available to the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

The Salmon and Challis National Forests are located primarily in Custer and Lemhi 

Counties, Idaho. The percent of Federal ownership in these counties is 93 percent and 

90 percent, respectively. County governments receive Federal payments to compensate 

for lost property tax revenue from two major sources: 

1. Twenty-five Percent Fund – The Act of May 23, 1908, authorizes 25 percent of all 

payments received by the Forest Service during any fiscal year to be paid to the states. 

These payments are distributed to the counties in which they were earned. In 2000 the 

“Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000” was 

passed by Congress to restore stability and predictability to the annual payments 

made to States and counties containing national Forest System lands and public 

domain lands managed by the BLM for use by the counties for the benefit of 

public schools, roads and other purposes. Through this act Counties may receive 

amounts described in the Act under Title 1, Title 11 and Title 111 (All Service 

Receipts) in place of 25 % payment for FY 2001 through FY 2007. 

FLREA -- The Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) was passed in the 

2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 108-447) signed into law by President Bush 

on December 8, 2004. The 10-year Act authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Agriculture to establish, modify, charge and collect recreation fees at Federal recreation 

lands and waters as provided for in the Act. FLREA changed how the fees are collected 

Budget - 3 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

and how they can be used. The majority of revenue is returned to the site of collection in 

a specific collection account and not to the 25% fund therefore it will no longer be 

reported in this section. Collections and expenditures are reported in a separate 

mandatory annual report to Congress. 

2. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) – Public Law 97-258 authorizes payment to 

counties containing Federal lands (Forest Service and BLM). PILT amounts depend on 

several variables. In Lemhi County, payments result from a $0.10 per acre limit. In 

Custer County, payments are governed by a population factor. 

Variability: PILT payments have been very constant from year to year, while the 25 

percent fund receipts have not. 

Evaluation: In order to understand the variability of 25 percent fund receipts, it must be 

divided into its individual resource components. The tables below identify how timber, 

grazing, recreation, special uses, and other resource areas contributed to the total 

funding in 2011 for the Salmon and Challis National Forests. 

Salmon-Challis National Forest (Salmon Area) 

Source of 25 percent Fund Receipts in Dollars
 

Year Forest 

Plan *Timber Lands RecLand Power Minerals Rec User Range Total 

2011 71,639 13,764 3,279 5,221 7,736 See 

FLREA 28,756 127,450 

Salmon-Challis National Forest (Challis Area) 

Source of 25 percent Fund Receipts in Dollars
 

Year Forest 

Plan *Timber Lands RecLand Power Minerals Rec User Range Total 

2011 69,587 21,797 5,927 0 0 See 

FLREA 73,375 170,686 

*Figures for timber include dollars from the National Forest Fund, salvage sale, KnutsonVandenberg (KV) fund, and purchaser road credits. 2011 data from B&F ASC request 

for report 13-1. 

The twenty-five percent fund receipts have been relatively constant for many resource 

areas. Recreation use has shown consistent increases while timber has shown a 

continuing decline. 

PILT payments have also undergone a modification in payment method. Some counties 

have elected to change from an annual variable rate to a fixed average rate as a means 

of maintaining consistency. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. The actual 

receipts to Counties is no longer available to the Forest, however, the data is available 

through State sources 

BUDGET: Capital Investments 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to Be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 Capital Investments Annually Meet Forest Plan Objectives and 

Targets 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Budget - 4 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: INFRA was used as the resource specialist input from FY 2006 on. 

Unit of Measure: Structures and miles 

Salmon and Challis National Forests 

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS - CONSTRUCTION 

Year Miles 

Trails 

Miles 

Trail/Wldns 

Structure 

Fish* 

Structure 

T&E* 

Structure 

Wildlife* 

Structure 

Range 

Miles 

Roads 

2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

*Fish, T&E or Wildlife Structures are no longer reported/tracked through a Management 

Attainment Reporting System. Our Fish/T&E/Wildlife target definitions have changed to 

acres and miles of habitat improved. Only Fish/T&E/Wildlife structures over $5000 are 

reported and tracked in INFRA. 

Variability: The outputs were highly variable, mostly because they are dependent on 

the budget, which is influenced by social and biological factors. 

Evaluation: Forest Plans predictions for outputs were based on knowledge of social 

and biological factors available in the late 1980’s. We are unable to correctly predict 

what the budget would be over the next 25 + years. 

Appropriateness: Continue to report as this is useful information for employees and 

the public as a means of showing trends in implementing Forest Plan direction and 

therefore should be part of the Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

BUDGET: Returns to U.S. Treasury 

Monitoring Item Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which 

Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-4 Returns to Treasury Annually Not Applicable 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: This information is no longer available after FY03. 

Unit of Measure: Dollars Variability: N/A Evaluation: N/A 

Appropriateness: The data for this monitoring item is no longer available so it is 

inappropriate to continue to monitor. 

Budget - 5 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Cultural Resources: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness 

Management Plan 

Monitoring Item Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWCultural 

Resources 

The percent of 

previously 

recorded 

cultural 

resource 

sites receiving 

annual site 

inventory and 

evaluation -

implementation 

follows the 

programmatic 

agreement with 

SHPO. 

Every 2 years Heritage resources are protected and 

managed 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: SHPO programmatic agreement 

Unit of Measure: Compliance with SHPO programmatic agreement 

Findings: Included in the Heritage Resources section of this document. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Cultural Resources - 6 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FACILITIES: Road Construction 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Road Construction Annually 

Only when mileage constructed 

exceeds planned mileage by 10 

percent (Salmon); deviated by more 

than 10% (Challis). 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Annual Road Accomplishment Report 

Unit of Measure: Miles 

Findings: 

Salmon and Challis National Forests 

ROAD CONSTRUCTION 

Year FY11 

Salmon 0.0 

Challis 0.0 

Variability: Salmon predicted 27 miles/year of road construction (pg. IV-85) for this 

decade; Challis predicted 2.6 miles/year (pg. V-2). Both Forests are below their 

predicted mileage due to a shift in forest management priorities from timber harvest to 

fuels reduction in recent years. The Roadless Rule of 2001 restricted road construction 

within forest plan identified roadless areas has also impacted timber harvest and 

associated road construction activities. 

Roads support resource activities and, generally, are not a stand-alone target, except for 

the arterial/collector road system. 

Evaluation: Road construction supports other resource activities. As resource activities 

changed over the planning period so did the need for road construction. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue monitoring because it is not reflective of and is not a 

resource output; road construction supports resource activities to the extent necessary. 

Also, road construction is tracked annually in the Road Accomplishment Report and 

entered into INFRA corporate database. 

FACILITIES: Road Reconstruction 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 Road Reconstruction Annually 

Only when mileage constructed 

exceeds planned mileage by 10 

percent (Salmon); deviates by more 

than 10% (Challis). 

Facilities - 7 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Annual Road Accomplishment Report 

Unit of Measure: Miles 

Findings: 

Salmon and Challis National Forests 

ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 

Year FY11 

Salmon 0 

Challis 0 

Variability: Salmon predicted 17 miles/year of road reconstruction (pg. IV-85) for this 

decade; Challis predicted 11.4 miles/year (pg. V-2). 

Evaluation: Due to emphasis on fish habitat, existing roads may eventually be 

reconstructed to reduce sedimentation and for fish passage. Reconstruction supports 

other resource activities. As resource activities changed over the planning period so did 

the need for road reconstruction. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue monitoring. Not a resource output; supports resource 

activities to the extent necessary. Also, tracked annually in Road Accomplishment 

Report and entered into INFRA corporate database. 

FACILITIES: Road Closures 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 Road Closures Annually 

If 15% of the newly constructed roads are 

open without meeting the stated criteria; or if 

15% of the existing roads are closed without 

meeting the stated criteria. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Forest Travel Plan. 

Unit of Measure: Number of roads 

Findings: This information has not been tracked through the life of the Plan and is not 

available at this time. Miles of road decommissioning has been tracked, and doesn’t 

relate to new or existing roads being closed (not decommissioned) for this monitoring 

item. 

No comprehensive method exists to monitor this activity. 

Facilities - 8 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Variability: Not assessable 

Evaluation: Unknown if meeting evaluation conditions or not. Any proposed action 

affecting roads or access is highly scrutinized by the local publics. The Forest utilizes the 

1999 Roads Analysis process when access management is being addressed in a 

proposed project. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue monitoring because road closures have not been tracked 

during through the life of the Plan. Resource issues/benefits drive road closures, and 

public access needs (both perceived and real) drive keeping roads open. 

The Forest has recently completed a Forest-wide Travel Planning analysis. The product 

from this analysis is an updated travel plan map for the Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

The decision on the Travel plan opened 53 miles of road. 

FACILITIES: Road Maintenance 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-4 Road Maintenance Annually 

A 20% deviation from expected 

miles/year or a road condition not 

meeting objectives of management. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Road logs and condition surveys, C&M Supervisor’s maintenance logs. 

Unit of Measure: Miles 

Findings: 

South Zone (former Challis National Forest) 

Year FY11 

Challis 110 

Variability: The average annual mileage bladed over the last twelve years is 313 miles; 

the forest plan projected 560 miles/year. The forest has a more than 44% deviation from 

the projected. Condition surveys are performed for deferred maintenance reporting 

requirements but don’t track annual road maintenance accomplishments. Condition 

surveys are performed on a four-year rotation for ML 3-5 roads and only random 

samples (average 2%) for ML 1 and 2 roads annually. 

Evaluation: N/A 

Appropriateness: Discontinue monitoring, reported annually in Road Accomplishment 

Report and condition is tracked in INFRA database. Road maintenance is a function of 

available funding. Maintenance is performed in support of resource activities and public 

access needs. 

Facilities - 9 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FACILITIES: Bridge Construction and Reconstruction 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-5 Bridge Construction 

and Reconstruction Annually A 10% deviation from projected quantities. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Annual Accomplishment Reports 

Unit of Measure: Each 

Findings: 

Year FY11 

Challis 0 

Variability: No specific target/goal for bridge construction/reconstruction. 

Evaluation: No target exists for bridge replacement or repair in the Forest Plan. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue monitoring; bridge inspections/condition/repairs are 

tracked in the INFRA database. This item is not a resource output; it supports 

resource/access activities. 

FACILITIES: Buildings 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-6 Buildings Annually Identified deficiencies are not 

corrected. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Inspection Reports (replaced by INFRA database) 

Unit of Measure: Each 

Findings: Safety Inspections were completed for all occupied facilities in 2008 and 

2009. Corrective actions continue to be completed. 

Variability: N/A 

Evaluation: Deferred building maintenance will be tracked in INFRA in the future and 

projects will be prioritized from these reports. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue monitoring, tracked in INFRA database and not a 

resource output. 

Facilities - 10 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Facilities: Dam Administration 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-7 Dam Administration Annually Identified deficiencies are not 

corrected. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Inspection Reports 

Unit of Measure: Each 

Findings: No information collected for FY 11 

Variability: Unknown 

Evaluation: Monitored through special use permits. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a monitoring requirement. 

Facilities - 11 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FIRE: Adequacy of Fire Prevention Programs 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-1 Person-caused 

fires 

Annually Major increase in person-caused 

fires 

Monitoring Requirements: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Annual Fire Report 

Units of Measure: Number of person-caused fires and acreage 

Findings: 

Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Number of person-caused fires and Acreage 

Year # of Person- caused Fires Acreage 

2011 4 3 

Variability: As the use of ATVs and other outdoor recreation uses increases, we expect 

to see an increase in person-caused fires. If drought conditions exist, we would also 

expect to see an increase in the number of acres burned as a result of these fires. 

Evaluation: The existing prevention program remains effective at leveling off the 

number of person-caused fires. Initial attack resources are effective in keeping human 

caused acres burned to a minimum. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring report requirement. 

FIRE: Wildfire and Acres Burned 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be measured Monitoring Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-2 Frequency of wild fire 

occurrence by size, 

distribution, intensity, and 

acres burned. 

Annually 20% increase (Salmon) in 

cumulative 5 year average; 30% 

increase (Challis) 

Monitoring Requirements: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: Annual Fire Report 

Units of Measure: Number of wildfires and total acres 

Findings: 

Number of wildfires and Acreage 

Year # of wildfires Acreage 

2011 65 51,132 

Fire - 12 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Variability: The trend for number of fires and area burned tracks with the drought trend, 

fire weather, and available fire suppression resources at the time of fires. Area burned 

trends likely could continue to increase due to the un-natural fuel accumulations outside 

the Frank Church Wilderness caused by fire exclusion. 2011 shows an increase in 

number of fires and total acres burned. The number of fires is likely due to a spring that 

had below average precipitation even though the annual snow pack was near 100%. 

The increase in acreage burned was primarily due to 4 large fires which burned 45,286 

acres. 

Evaluation: The trends of increasing area burned have been recognized as a national 

issue across the western United States and congress and agencies are addressing the 

problem in multiple ways, including the National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and 

the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Due to increased risks to firefighters (landscape 

level bug infestations, increased extreme fire behavior due to dying vegetation, and 

increased fuel loading) associated with Fire Suppression activities we may continue to 

see an increase in acres burned until current conditions subside. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan requirement and expand the report by 

analyzing and displaying the post fire severity of the area burned by Fire Regime Group 

(per Fire Regime Condition Class methodology). Continue to evaluate new fires by 

looking at opportunities for managing for multiple objectives. 

FIRE: Reduction in Fuel Loading from Forest Activities 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-3 Field measurements 

after activity or fuel 

treatment 

Sample 30% of 

Projects 

Exceeding fuel level guidelines 

by 10% (Salmon); + or – 20% 

of Regional standards (Challis) 

Monitoring Requirements: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: FACTS 

Units of Measure: Number of acres treated 

Findings: 

Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Fuel Reduction Acres Treated (including fire-use fires) 

Year Number of Acres Treated 

2011 57,462 

Variability: Field observations of projects indicated standards were met. Fuels treatment 

by mechanical methods and planned ignition will continue to increase. Area treated by 

fire-use (un-planned natural ignitions) will vary depending on the factors related to 

expected fire behavior (fire effects/benefits) and potential risks. 2011 acreage shows a 

significant increase due to late season fire activity forest wide. 

Evaluation: The National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act provide direction to increase the number of fuels treatment acres as 

Fire - 13 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

related to wildland urban interface, fire regime condition class, and other important 

resource and social concerns. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring report requirement and, for fireuse fires, expand by analyzing and displaying the post fire severity of the area burned by 

Fire Regime Group (per Fire Regime Condition Class methodology). 

FIRE: Fire Management Effectiveness Index 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-4 Fire Management 

Effectiveness 

Annually 20% increase in FMEI 

Monitoring Requirements: Salmon National Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: NFMAS Planning 

Units of Measure: Fire Management Effectiveness Index (FMEI) (See FP page V-13) 

Findings: There is no additional information to report. Values used to calculate the 

FMEI are no longer used in NFMAS. The FMEI can no longer be calculated per Forest 

Plan direction. NFMAS is no longer being used as planning tool as the federal agencies 

have been directed to use Fire Program Analysis (FPA) which does not include a 

measurable FMEI. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Not applicable. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue as a Forest Plan monitoring report requirement. FMEI is 

no longer a valid or functioning index in fire management. 

Fire: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency 

Monitoring 

Objective 

FC-RONRWFire 1. Amount and type of motorized use 

authorizations for each fire 

2. Number and percent of acres of 

Wildland Fire Use 

3. Number and percent of acres of 

wildfire 

4. Number and percent of acres of 

prescribed fire 

Annually Fire is allowed to 

serve as a 

natural ecological 

process 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Fire - 14 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Data Source: Documentation of reasons for wildfire declaration and number and 

percent of acres of wildland fire use, wildfire and prescribed fire. 

Unit of Measure: Motorized authorizations and acres 

Findings: 

Year 2011 

No. of fires 14 

Acres 14,500 

Tracking of motorized use on fires has been accomplished but reporting has been highly 

variable. 

Variability: The trend for number of fires and area burned tracks with the drought trend 

and fire weather. However, 2008 through 2010 show low number of fires and acres 

burned. This was due to above normal precipitation in May and June 

Evaluation: The trends of increasing area burned have been recognized as a national 

issue across the western United States and congress and agencies are addressing the 

problem in multiple ways, including the National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and 

the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Due to large acres burned in the last 15 years we 

may be seeing an actual decrease in acreage burned in the Frank Church Wilderness 

which constitutes a large portion of the Forest. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Fire - 15 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FISHERIES: Anadromous and Resident Habitat Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to 

be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 R1/R4 Basin 

Surveys of 

Fish Habitat 

To be 

determined 

post-baseline 

Future monitoring frequency should be based on 

the level of management activity occurring in a 

watershed and changes to baseline conditions 

from natural disturbances such as fire. 

Monitoring Requirements: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline and Trend 

Data Source: North and South Zone Fisheries files and data-base programs 

Unit of Measure: Number of streams and miles of inventory 

Findings: 

North Zone (former Salmon National Forest) 

Year Number of Streams Inventoried Miles of Stream Inventoried 

(Anadromous) (Resident) (Anadromous) (Resident) 

2011 0 0 0 0 

South Zone (former Challis National Forest) 

Year Number of Streams Inventoried Miles of Stream Inventoried 

(Anadromous) (Resident) (Anadromous) (Resident) 

2011 0 0 0 0 

Variability: Stream surveys were performed on the Salmon-Challis National Forest in 

the mid-to late 1990’s in order to determine baseline habitat conditions for streams 

throughout the forest. These surveys quantified habitat features including pool-riffle 

ratios, large woody debris structures, the number, size and depth of pools, average 

channel widths and depths, etc. By necessity, most stream surveys are performed 

following spring run-off, especially for measurement of in-stream habitat elements like 

flow, depths, base level pool quality, cover and sediment accumulation. 

Evaluation: From 1994 through 2000, 1,000 miles of R1/R4 basin-wide surveys were 

performed on streams within the Salmon-Challis National Forests in order to create 

baseline reference conditions for meeting Forest Plan objectives. Long-term goals 

include the performance of project related stream surveys in order to monitor project 

implementation and effectiveness. 

The Water Monitoring section of this report also contains monitoring results for sediment, 

stream-bank stability, in-stream flows and temperatures. In addition, the Range section 

contains results of riparian vegetation (Management Indicator) monitoring. 

Appropriateness: The Forest continues to need stream habitat monitoring in support of 

various actions by other resource programs, as required by Environmental Analyses, 

Fisheries - 16 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

criteria within Biological Assessments and Opinions, plus ongoing inventory for 

population trends of Sensitive species like Bull trout. 

A National Resource Inventory System (NRIS) data-base system has been developed 

for storage of species and habitat inventory data. Project inventories and 

implementation/effectiveness monitoring now provide the primary source of new stream 

habitat information for documenting the attainment of Forest Plan decisions, Standards 

and Guidelines. As such, it is appropriate to continue stream habitat monitoring. 

FISHERIES: Anadromous Fish Spawning Surveys 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-3 Chinook Salmon 

Spawning Activity 

and Location 

Annually for index 

and project areas 

(Ongoing) 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Stream Habitat Condition and Trends 

Data Source: North and South Zone Fisheries files and data-base programs 

Unit of Measure: Number and stream locations of Chinook salmon redds 

Findings: 

North Zone (former Salmon National Forest) 

Survey 

Year Stream Name Completed Chinook Salmon Redds Observed1 

2011 1. Camas Cr. (Castle Cr. to Hammer Cr.) 

2. North Fork Salmon River 

3. Panther Cr. 

(4th of July Cr. to Moyer Cr.) 

(Moyer Cr. to Blackbird Cr.) 

(Blackbird Cr. to Deep Cr.) 

(Panther Cr Riparian Pasture Unit – 1,000 m) 

(Holding Pasture Unit – 1,000 m) 

(Holding Pasture Unit – 1,000 m) 

(Prairie Basin Unit2 – 1,000 m) 

4. Hayden Cr. 

(Boulder Flat Unit – 1,000 m) 

(Bear Valley Cr. Payne/Ford Unit – 1,000 m) 

(Collected by RMRS and IDFG) 

(Collected by IDFG) 

(Collected by IDFG & S/B Tribes) 

(Collected by IDFG & S/B Tribes) 

(Collected by IDFG & S/B Tribes) 

(Collected by FS = 5 redds) 

(Collected by FS = 1 redd) 

(Collected by FS = 20 redds) 

(Collected by FS = 0 redds) 

(Collected by IDFG) 

(Collected by FS = 0) 

(Collected by FS = 0) 

1 Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Rocky Mountain Research take the lead in Chinook 

salmon redd surveys on the North Zone of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. North Zone 

personnel provide assistance to IDFG when employees are available. IDFG and RMRS maintain 

their original data for Chinook salmon redd surveys. This information can be accessed on their 

web sites, via the following locations: 

a. Idaho Fish & Game Department: 

(https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries%20Research%20Reports/Forms/Show%20All%20Rep 

orts.aspx) 

b. Boise Office - Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

Russ Thurow (rthurow@fs.fed.us; 208-373-4377) 

Fisheries - 17 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

South Zone (former Challis National Forest) 

Survey Year Stream Name Completed Chinook Salmon 

Redds Observed1 

2011 Data collected by RMRS and IDFG - 1

 The South Zone does not keep data on Chinook redds; only information on bull trout redds has 

been recorded and kept on file. 

Variability: Salmon redd counts reflect annual adult returns and provide an index for 

anticipated production of the next year’s cohort of fish. Their 700 to 900 mile migration to 

and from the Pacific Ocean exposes Chinook salmon to a multitude of mortality factors 

that affect the annual survival and spawning returns of each cohort. Therefore a range of 

variations exists between each year’s respective levels of mortality and the number of 

adults returning to spawn between three and five years later. 

Evaluation: Historic declines of “wild” Chinook salmon and Steelhead have been 

reflected in the declining trends of adults that have returned to spawn in on-Forest 

streams over the past 75 years. These declines were especially marked following 

completion of several dams on the lower Snake River 30 to 40 years ago. Since that 

time, continued declines in wild salmon populations have also been influenced by stream 

diversions and dewatering, variations in annual stream flows, juvenile mortality during 

out-migrations and fluctuations of rearing conditions within the Pacific Ocean. While still 

quite depressed from historic levels, Chinook salmon and Steelhead spawning returns in 

the last couple years have risen to levels not seen in some places for fifty years. While 

not fully understood, the general consensus has been that these increases have been 

due to better spring run-off conditions and reduced mortality during the out-migration, as 

well as improved growth and survival during time spent at sea. 

Appropriateness: As the primary local method by which to monitor population trends, 

continued monitoring of Chinook salmon spawning activity is still warranted. Continued 

monitoring of index stream locations is especially useful for the identification trends in 

the use of on-forest habitats. Ongoing redd monitoring has been critical to verifying 

these changes and whether current fisheries and stream habitat recovery efforts are 

serving their intended purposes, plus to what degree they are helping to recover onForest populations of wild salmon and steelhead. 

FISHERIES: Resident and Anadromous Fish Population Surveys 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-4 Species Occurrence – 

(electrofishing) 

To be determined 

based upon 

management needs 

Identified water quality or habitat 

related problems and changes in 

baseline conditions 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline Monitoring and ongoing fisheries population trends 

Data Source: North and South Zone Fisheries program and Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game data-bases. 

Unit of Measure: Number of streams sampled and species found 

Fisheries - 18 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Findings: 

North Zone (former Salmon National Forest) 

Year 

Number of 

Streams Number of Streams in Which Species Were Found 

Surveyed Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

2011 35 1 12 18 

South Zone (former Challis National Forest) 

Year 

Number of 

Streams Number of Streams in Which Species Were Found 

Surveyed Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

2011 31 2 3 17 

Following signing of the Forest Plan in 1988, in 1990 the Salmon National Forest 

(presently the S-C Forest, North Zone) consolidated all known fish species occurrence 

and distribution information into a comprehensive “General Aquatic Wildlife Survey 

(Level I) Stream Habitat Inventory” following National and Regional program direction at 

that time. This report documented all known fish species’ occurrences within perennial 

streams of the Salmon National Forest. This report catalogued occurrences of native 

rainbow trout, west-slope cutthroat trout, bull trout, mountain whitefish, Snake River 

Summer Steelhead, Spring/Summer Chinook salmon, plus areas with introduced 

eastern Brook trout. In addition, stocking histories of hatchery fish were also summarized 

for the preceding 50 years. Non-game fish species were not included however, due to 

lack of surveys and data for those species. All watersheds were cataloged, along with 

determinations of all stream miles by land status, within each of them, were determined 

down to 0.1 mile increments. (However, previous program direction and procedures 

have since been superseded with GIS and NRIS now being the data-bases of record for 

current resource information.) Challis Forest (presently the S-C Forest, South Zone) fish 

species distributions have been determined by stream surveys and watershed 

assessments, as reported upon in their respective inventory reports. 

Subsequently, in the mid- to late 1990’s the Forest participated in a multi-year effort 

directed by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, utilizing R1/R4 Basin-wide Stream 

Survey methods to inventory stream habitat conditions, which focusing upon the use of 

snorkel surveys for fish species presence/absence determinations. However, in recent 

years “electro-fishing” has once again become the preferred method for inventory and 

monitoring of fish species’ occurrence and trends. Over the past ten years, the findings 

of S-C Forest fisheries program surveys have been contributed to the Idaho Department 

of Fish & Game’s statewide “Stream Inventory Data-base”. In addition, the Forest 

Service has now developed a new agency data-base system of record for resource 

inventory and monitoring data. (NRIS) S-C Forest fisheries and stream survey data need 

to also be entered into this data-base. Recently, Salmon-Challis Forest GIS data-bases 

have been created and/or updated to include fish species occurrence and delineations of 

respective Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas for all streams within the Salmon-Challis 

Forest. 

Variability: Year to year trends in fish species occurrence and populations depend upon 

annual variations in habitat limiting factors (like precipitation, stream flow and water 

temperatures) that influence recruitment and survival rates. In addition, migration 

Fisheries - 19 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

barriers of various types (flow, temperature, physical obstructions, etc.) often limit fish 

movements and fragment key reproduction and nursery areas in headwater stream 

reaches. For these reasons, there can often be considerable variation in both fish 

species’ occurrences and populations; not only between years, but between individual 

streams within or between watersheds. 

Evaluation: The performance of annual fish species occurrence and trend monitoring 

continue to be a critical component of the Salmon-Challis Forest Fisheries Program. This 

type of monitoring provides ongoing characterizations of fish populations within Forest 

streams that are necessary for attainment of Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and 

decisions, as well as various types of legal requirements. Fisheries monitoring also 

supports other resource programs by providing the information needed for NEPA 

assessments and Endangered Species Act Section-7 consultation. 

Appropriateness: Continuation of annual fisheries population surveys and monitoring 

continues to be required and necessary for support of all Forest resource programs. 

Adequate funding and personnel for annual monitoring and data entry into the NRIS 

data-base system remains a critical requirement for meeting the Salmon-Challis Forest’s 

Forest Plan and its legal obligations. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA): FOIA 

Requests 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring Frequency Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

TR-1 FOIA Requests Annually by Fiscal Year Not applicable 

Monitoring Requirement: Not a required monitoring item 

Monitoring Type: Tracking 

Data Source: FOIA Annual Report 

Unit of Measure: Number of requests by resource, cost to the government and fees 

collected. 

Findings: 36 FOIA requests were received and processed in FY 2011. No processing 

fees were collected. 

Total Number of FOIA Requests 2011 

YEAR NUMBER OF REQUESTS 

2011 36 

Requests by Resource Area 2011 

Resource Area # of Requests 2011 

Mining 1 

Grazing 13 

Wilderness 4 

Roads 0 

Personnel 0 

Outfitters 2 

Fire 1 

NEPA 2 

Recreation 2 

Miscellaneous 11 

Fisheries - 20 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Key Requesting Organizations in 2011 

Organization Number of Requests 

Western Watersheds Project 5 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies 1 

Formation Capital Corporation 2 

Variability: Not Applicable 

Evaluation: The number of FOIA requests varies from year to year. The cost of 

processing FOIA requests dropped since 2009. 

Appropriateness: Although this is not a required monitoring item in the Forest Plan, it 

does provide interesting information on the increased interest in Forest activities and 

should continue to be monitored and reported. 

Fisheries - 21 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

HERITAGE: Site Deterioration 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Site deterioration Annually 

Cultural properties lose characteristics that 

make them eligible to the National Register 

of Historic Places 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Project inventory reports and monitoring reports 

Unit of Measure: Number of sites monitored and number of sites in which National 

Register of Historic Places characteristics have deteriorated. 

Findings: 

Year # Sites Monitored # Sites Deteriorated % Sites Deteriorated

 North 

Zone 

South 

Zone 

North 

Zone 

South 

Zone 

North 

Zone 

South 

Zone 

2011 38 33 6 8 16 24 

Variability: The eight sites noted as being deteriorated on the Challis include four sites 

under investigation for ARPA violations and four sites destroyed by the 2007 fires. 

Evaluation: A review of site data suggests that over time the majority of sites monitored 

are not deteriorating. For the most part site deterioration is generally due to wild fires or 

a lack of proactive Heritage management, rather than poor project performance. A 

Historic Preservation Plan for the Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness is 

currently being written which will address conflicts between Middle Fork recreational 

camping and impacts to archaeological sites. Archaeological sites are damaged by 

various forms of erosion, animal impacts, weathering, non-designated camping, wildfire 

and vandalism. Very little damage is due to direct project impacts, and most of those 

occurred many years ago. Forest Plan standards and guidelines are adequate to protect 

these sites; however, sufficient time and funding is needed to correct the problems, 

where appropriate 

Appropriateness: Continue to monitor as a Forest Plan requirement. This type of 

monitoring is Mandatory under Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

HERITAGE: Site Preservation 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

TR-1 Site preservation Annually Cultural properties are not preserved 

according to management plans 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Heritage - 22 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Data Source: Management plans and site monitoring reports 

Unit of Measure: Number of sites slated for preservation and number of sites not 

preserved. 

Findings: 

Year # Sites Proposed for 

Preservation # Sites Preserved % Sites Preserved 

Salmon Challis Salmon Challis Salmon Challis 

2011 1 2 1 2 100 100 

Variability: Reductions 2011 preservation levels are due to lack of funding, insufficient 

staffing and shifting priorities to other non-preservation activities in support of wild fire 

suppression, fuel reduction projects, travel management planning, and range NEPA. 

Evaluation: To date the data suggests that we are following through with planned 

preservation projects as funding and project implementation schedules allow. 

Appropriateness: Continue to monitor. Monitoring is mandatory under Section 106 and 

110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

HERITAGE: Interpretation 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

TR-2 Interpretation Annually Cultural properties are not interpreted to the 

general or scientific public 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Forest Archaeologist 

Unit of Measure: List of interpretive products 

Findings: 

Year Forest Name of Interpretive Product 

2011 Challis 

Idaho Archaeological Society (3 presentations); Historic Ranch Tour for Idaho 

Archaeological Month; Presentation on log cabin construction for Idaho 

Archaeological Month; Sater Cabin Stabilization utilizing six volunteers; 44 

Cabin Stabilization with assistance from the Treasure Valley Backcountry 

Horsemen; Middle Fork Interpretive Program in cooperation with the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

2011 Salmon Idaho Archaeological Society (2 presentations); Middle Fork trip with the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; Middle Fork Heritage Times. 

Variability: Interpretive products vary over time depending on funding and workload. 

Evaluation: The number of interpretive projects completed on the Forest provides a 

moderate level of public interpretation. The interpretive program has attempted to 

Heritage - 23 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

provide a wide variety of locations and styles of interpretation to reach local and national 

audiences. An interpretive program is strongly suggested under Section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Appropriateness: Continue to monitor. 

HERITAGE: Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild and Scenic River Management 

Plan: Campsites with Cultural Values 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 

MFWSR-6 

Cultural Site 

Stability As needed Detrimental site instability from activities 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan; Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild & 

Scenic River Management Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Field observations 

Unit of Measure: Qualitative interpretation 

Findings: 

Year # Sites Monitored for 

Stability # Stable Sites % Stable Sites 

2011 40 26 65 

Variability: In 2011an upward trend reflects re-inspection of some of the sites previously 

known to be stable ten years ago which continue to be in relatively good condition. A reinspection of some of the Middle Fork sites occurred in 2011 with members of the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Discussions during that trip revolved around potential ways 

to reduce recreation impacts to archaeological sites. 

Evaluation: The 2007 fire year encompassed approximately 250,000 acres of the 

Forest and impacted a number of campsites with heritage resources along the Middle 

Fork. Several campsites that were unstable in the 1996 inventory have become stable 

owing to closure and restoration activities. However, at least 13 sites continue to be 

unstable from camping, stock, and wildlife use. These sites are scheduled for restoration 

activities over time and it is envisioned that they will eventually return to a stable 

condition following appropriate treatment. A Historic Preservation Plan for the Frank 

Church – River of No Return Wilderness is currently being written which will address 

Middle Fork camping impacts to archaeological sites. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement on an ‘as needed’ 

basis. 

Heritage - 24 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

INSECTS AND DISEASE: Species 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Insect and Disease Annually Determine if outbreaks are likely to 

reach epidemic levels 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Aerial Pest Detection Survey, Forest Pest Management, Boise Field 

Office 

Unit of Measure: Number of trees killed on infected acreage by species. 

Findings: Annual flights are made in areas identified as moderate to high potential for 

insect and disease activities. Below are the survey results. 

North Zone (former Salmon National Forest) 

Total Number of Infected Acres / Trees Killed by Species 

Year Mt. Pine Beetle DF Bark 

Beetle 

Western 

Pine 

Beetle 

Spruce 

Beetle 

Subalpine 

Fir Mortality 

Complex 

Western 

Spruce 

Budworm 

2011 312,449/1,874,282 1,480/2,612 0/0 0/0 1,408/572 37,192 

South Zone (former Challis National Forest) 

Total Number of Infected Acres / Trees Killed by Species 

Year Mt. Pine Beetle DF Bark Beetle 

Western 

Pine 

Beetle 

Spruce 

Beetle 

Subalpine Fir 

Mortality 

Complex 

Western 

Spruce 

Budworm 

2011 36,386/124,103 45,193/46,190 0/0 0/0 1,302/5,727 124,006 * 

* Defoliated acres all districts 

Variability: Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) continues at outbreak levels across the North 

Zone, while MPB population is on the decline on the South zone. Douglas fir beetle 

(DFB) is increasing on the South Zone as more acres are being heavily impacted by 

Western Spruce Budworm. Expectation that there will be a slight rise in the next five 

years of DFB near last year fires on the North Zone. Western Spruce Budworm (WSB) 

continues to expand across the South Zone with 85% of those areas experiencing heavy 

defoliation which is contributing to expansion of DFB. Small pockets of Subalpine Fir 

Mortality Complex continue across the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Other insect 

agents noted in 2011 include Twig beetle that affected 40 acres on the North Zone and 

increase in Pine Butterfly reaching outbreak levels in Ponderosa pine on the North Fork 

Ranger District. On the South Zone 7 acres of Aspen decline were mapped on the 

Challis Ranger District, agent for defoliation was not determined. For the last two years 

Western pine beetle has not been mapped on the North Zone and for the South Zone 

not since 2006. Spruce Beetle populations also have not been mapped in the aerial 

detection surveys on both zones for the last four years. 

Evaluation: In the late 1990s the Salmon and Challis National Forests’ timber sale 

program focused on the control of insect and disease problems, primarily in the Douglas 

Insect and Disease - 25 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

fir and ponderosa pine types. In the last five years the Forest timber sale program has 

shifted to being more aggressive in conducting fuel reduction work around Wildland 

Urban Interfaces. Activities have included Sanitation/Salvage (residual mortality from 

epidemic) and commercial understory thinning to return systems to a more fire 

resistance stand and to prevent catastrophic fires in these areas. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring and report requirement, but 

drop Western Pine and Spruce beetle until they become an agent that is impacting forest 

health across the forest. Monitoring insect and disease activities is required by the 

National Forest Management Act. This information is needed to assess Forest health 

and is useful in guiding Forest management activities. 

Insect and Disease - 26 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

LANDS: Occupancy Trespass 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-2 Occupancy Trespass Annually A stable or increasing number 

of trespass cases 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Survey Reports, Management Attainment Report 

Unit of Measure: Case 

Findings: Occupancy trespass can take several forms from a misaligned fence to 

structural buildings. Cases of structural trespass have been resolved primarily through 

The Small Tracts Act. Resolving occupancy trespass through the Small Tracks Act has 

resulted in approximately 2 cases per year across the Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

2011 

North Zone 2 

South Zone 1 

The current number of occupancy trespass incidences is eight (three on the North Zone 

[Salmon Forest] and five on the South Zone [Challis Forest]). Occupancy trespasses 

were tracked through the Encroachment Action Plan for the Salmon National Forest, 

November 1992; however this plan has not been maintained since the Forests were 

combined in 1995. The Forest Surveyor began documenting discoveries of occupancy 

trespass in fiscal year 1996. 

Variability: Actual performance is lagging behind, but is close to predicted performance. 

Progress in resolving cases has been slow. The main problem causing the delay in 

processing cases has been the changes of ownership and, to some extent, changes in 

Forest Service personnel working on the cases. The application and processing of these 

cases starts over with each change of ownership. 

Evaluation: An Encroachment Action Plan for the Salmon and Challis National Forests 

should be prepared and updated as needed per FSM direction in R-4 Supplement 5500­

92-1, Effective 10/9/92, which also states that each National Forest shall incorporate into 

the Forest Plan their Encroachment Action Plan. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring report requirement. Continue to 

track resolved occupancy trespass cases through the Small Tracts Act. 

Lands - 27 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

LANDLINES: Location 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to Be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Landline location Annually If attainment varies from assigned target 

by more than + or – 10 percent. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Management Attainment Report (MAR) 

Unit of Measure: Miles per year 

Findings: 

Combined Salmon and Challis Landline Target and Attainments 

Target 2011 

Planned 20 

Attained 27.9 

Variability: The Salmon Forest Plan on page IV-83 shows the annual target to survey 

and post 14 to 17 miles of National Forest boundaries. The Challis Forest Plan did not 

set a target for this monitoring item. In 1995, the combined target for both Forests was 

reduced to 12. 

Evaluation: What is actually planned for each year is below the Forest Plan target, 

indicating budget allocations and priorities vary considerably, the last few years being 

relatively non-existent. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement even though the 

targets and trends are no longer meaningful. Tracking of this activity is being maintained 

and is available in the Management Attainment Report. 

Landlines - 28 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

MINERALS: Designated Gravel and/or Riprap Sources 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Designated gravel and/or 

riprap sources Annually Problems which do not meet Forest Plan objectives 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: Engineers or Project Administrators for ongoing projects. 

Unit of Measure: Annual inspections 

Findings: In 2011 permits were issued for sand & gravel, rip-rap, and landscape rock. 

Totals for 2011 include: 

Commercial Free Use Forest Service Use 

Sand and Gravel 4,558 tons 0 8,700 tons 

Rip-Rap 1,373 tons 0 0 

Landscape Rock 0 0 0 

Variability: Access to suitable materials is keeping up with demand. 

Evaluation: The Votler Creek community pit had additional overburden removed to 

expose the gravel layer and improve accessibility of the materials. The portion of the pit 

that has been exhausted was reclaimed in the fall of 2012. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Monitoring 

standards are appropriate. 

MINERALS: Lease Stipulations and Forms 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 Adequacy of lease 

requirements Annually Inadequate to meet Forest Plan objectives 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: Project Administrators Annual Reports 

Unit of Measure: Compliance with lease stipulations 

Findings: There are three mineral leases in the Challis area and one geothermal lease 

in the Salmon area. However, none of the Challis leases are active. 

Variability: N/A 

Minerals - 29 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Evaluation: The geothermal lease application on the Salmon/Cobalt RD was received 

from OreMat for Hot Springs Creek and the environmental analysis to determine if 

leasing is feasible should be complete by the end of 2012. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Appropriate lease 

inspection and administration will occur should leases become active. 

MINERALS: Reclamation Results 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 

Reshaping and 

Vegetation of 

Disturbance 

Annually Any unacceptable or unexpected 

results not meeting requirements 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness/Validation 

Data Source: Project Administrator’s file documentation 

Unit of Measure: Compliance with plan requirements 

Findings: The Forest responds to 6 to 8 plans of operation annually. Each year, a 

number of active exploration programs are permitted involving drilling, trenching or bulk 

sampling activities. Post exploration reclamation work was completed on all areas of 

disturbance. Additionally, the weed treatment portion of each reclamation bond is kept 

for two years post-exploration and monitoring sites for weeds is done until that time has 

passed. 

Variability: Topographical, vegetation, aspect, and elevation have been dealt with 

successfully in meeting reclamation standards. 

Evaluation: Reclamation plans and practices have been successful. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

MINERALS: Locatable Plans of Operation 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-4 Compliance with 

Plan of Operations 

During 

operations/annually 

Any unacceptable or unexpected 

results not meeting Plan Standards 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Effectiveness 

Data Source: Project Administrator’s file documentation 

Unit of Measure: Compliance with Plan requirements 

Findings: Active Mines 

Minerals - 30 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items	 FY11 

1. Thompson Creek’s Molybdenum Mine Due to approval of a final patent in 

1999, the 2800 acre mine site is composed of mixed ownership with 

approximately 2200 acres privately owned by Thompson Creek Mining 

Company, 400 acres of Public land managed by the BLM and 200 acres of 

National Forest System Lands. The Forest Service, the State of Idaho 

Department of Lands (IDL) and BLM have administration responsibilities at the 

mine. Reclamation bonding being updated and IDL will hold FS portion of the 

bond. TCM submitted a plan of operation for expansion of the mine in 2008. An 

EIS is underway to analyze the effects of the proposed expansion. The DEIS for 

the proposal is scheduled for October 2012. 

The following larger operations are inactive but retain FS administration responsibilities. 

1. Grouse Creek Mine, located on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District, 

suspended active mining operations in 2000. Due to approval of a final patent in 

2006, The 536 acres mine site is composed of mix ownership with approximately 

498 acres privately owned by Hecla Mining Company and 38 acres of National 

Forest System Lands. Administration of the non-CERCLA portion of the mine site 

is shared by both the FS and IDL. 

2. Meridian Gold’s Beartrack Mine, located on the Salmon/Cobalt Ranger District 

ceased mining activity in March of 2000. The project is in the reclamation phase 

with over 80% of the earthwork and seeding required in the plan of operation 

completed. The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of preparing a 

new NPDES permit for the mine. Once the new NPDES permit is issued the 

Forest Service and Meridian will negotiate a plan for final reclamation. In the 

interim it is anticipated continued monitoring and reclamation work will occur for 

the next five years. 

Exploration Plans of Operation - The Forest responds to 6 to 8 plans of operation 

annually. In the last decade a number of active exploration programs were permitted 

involving drilling, trenching or bulk sampling activities. Post exploration reclamation work 

was completed on all disturbances. 

Abandoned Mine Lands - In addition to reclamation activities on new plans of 

operation, inventory and mitigation of Abandoned mine land sites have been initiated on 

the Forest. Activities include structure removal/dismantling and safety closures 

construction (bat gates, backfill etc.) on open features. This is an ongoing active 

program. In 2011, 25 sites were surveyed for cultural resources and the 

presence/absence of bats. Those sites will be closed in 2012. An estimated 30 sites will 

be surveyed in 2012 for closure in 2013. 

Safety Closures Completed on the SCNF

 2011 

Salmon-Challis 0 

Monitoring - Monitoring is conducted in the form of site visits by the Forest Service and 

Interagency Task Force of State agency representatives on the large mines. 

Additionally, for surface and ground water sampling, aquatic life, archaeology, 

reclamation activities, etc., are compiled and submitted to the appropriate agencies 

annually. Agencies conducting site reviews of active mines since 1997 include the 

Minerals - 31 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Department of Health 

and Welfare, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Lands, 

Army Corps of Engineers, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Blackbird Mine Cleanup Blackbird Mine Cleanup 

The Blackbird Mine is an inactive cobalt and copper mine located about 20 miles west of 

Salmon, Idaho. The site encompasses approximately 830 acres of private patented 

mining claims and 10,000 acres of unpatented claims within the Salmon-Challis National 

Forest. Historic mining operations conducted between the late 1800’s and 1982 resulted 

in releases of cobalt, copper, iron and arsenic into Blackbird Creek, Big Deer Creek and 

Panther Creek. 

In 1995 the United States reached agreement with the Responsible Parties (The 

Blackbird Mine Site Group) to perform the cleanup of the site and to implement a natural 

resources restoration plan called the Biological Restoration and Compensation Plan 

(BRCP). This agreement is embodied in a 1995 Consent Decree. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is the lead agency for remedial 

cleanup actions at the site. Cleanup actions are subject to the oversight of certain State 

and Federal Natural Resource Trustees. The USDA Forest Service is a Federal Trustee 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and 

the Clean Water Act. 

The Forest Service has designated an on-scene coordinator for the site to ensure that 

the rules, regulations and policies that are applicable to the management of National 

Forest lands are adhered to while performing remedial actions. 

Tungsten Jim Mine CERCLA 

Thompson Creek Mining Company is the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for this 

CERCLA Action that was initiated in 2005. In 2006, a Final Project Work Plan, Sample 

and Analysis Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, and 

a drafts of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) document were developed 

that analyzes removal action alternatives to clean-up a multi-unit abandoned mine (Site) 

located in the Thompson Creek Drainage proper (tributary to the main stem of the 

Salmon River). In addition, site characterization/assessments were conducted on the 

units of the Site. Additional characterization also occurred on the potential repository 

sites and borrows sites associated with the clean-up planning. Coordination with State, 

local government, Federal, and public entities continued in 2007. Progression in the 

selection of a clean-up alternative stalled in 2007 because of the location of the 

proposed repository on BLM. The proposed repository location is part of a land 

exchange between the PRP and BLM initiated in 2007. BLM was none committal to 

enter into a repository agreement with the Forest Service citing it would conflict with the 

land exchange process. This is a Forest Service lead CERCLA Action. 

Grouse Creek Mine CERCLA 

Hecla Mining Company is the PRP for this CERCLA Action. The approximately 80 acre 

tailings impoundment is located on patented land and is in the final stages of closure 

under CERCLA authority implemented in 2000. Land status changes through 2006 

created a mixed ownership site with approximately 498 acres private and 38 acres 

National Forest System Lands (NFS); 536 acres total. The 38 acres on NFS lands is 

Minerals - 32 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

outside the CERCLA Action. Because of the land status change, EPA assumed the lead 

agency role for the CERCLA Action in 2008 and the Forest Service adopted the role of 

supporting agency and Natural Resource Trustee. 

Variability: The number of inspections conducted varies. On average, large mine 

operations receive a minimum of one visit/contact per week. Active operations vary 

depending on level of activity, but inspections of exploration operations are usually 

conducted once every ten days. 

Evaluation: The Forests have an active administration program. Operations are in 

compliance. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

MINERALS: Lease Applications 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

G04 Lease 

Applications Annually 

Once current backlog is removed, any lease 

application on which no action is initiated 

within 3 months. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis LRMP 

Monitoring Technique: Inventory backlog 

Data Precision/Reliability: High/High 

Findings: There are three mineral leases in the Challis area. However, none of the 

Challis leases are active. No backlog exists. 

Evaluation: Since there are no active leases on the Forest, there has been no formal 

evaluation of leases conducted. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Appropriate lease 

inspection and administration will occur should leases become active. 

MINERALS: Lease stipulations and forms, and locatable operating plan 

requirements 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

G06 Stipulations and 

requirements Annually 

Lease and operating plan requirements are 

found inadequate to meet multiple resource 

needs. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis LRMP 

Monitoring Technique: Evaluate adequacy of lease and operating plan requirements 

Data Precision/Reliability: Moderate/Moderate 

Minerals - 33 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Findings: There are three mineral leases in the Challis area. However, none of the 

Challis leases are active. Per FP-4 above, inspections and administration of operating 

plan requirements are meeting multiple resource needs. 

Variability: Topographical, vegetation, aspect, and elevation have been dealt with 

successfully in meeting stipulations/requirements. 

Evaluation: Since there are no active leases on the Forest, there has been no formal 

evaluation of leases conducted. Appropriate lease inspection and administration will 

occur should leases become active. Operating plan requirements have been successful. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Minerals: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency 

Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWMinerals 1. Number of active mining 

claims operating under 

appropriate plan of operations 

2. Number of inactive mining 

claims with resource problems 

such as hazardous materials, 

erosion and garbage 

Every 5 years Valid claims are operated 

in a manner that protects 

wilderness. Resource 

impacts from abandoned 

mining activity do not 

pose a threat to the 

wilderness 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Evaluation 

Data Source: Survey of all valid mineral claims and abandoned mines following regional 

standards 

Unit of Measure: Number of surveys 

Findings: There are no valid mineral claims within the SCNF portion of the FCRONRW. 

No AML surveys have been conducted between 2007 and 2011. Two inactive mining 

claims have been identified to have resource problems. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement if AML sites are 

identified. 

Minerals - 34 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

RANGE: Condition and Trend 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-1 Condition and trend of 

vegetation and soils Annually If trend is down or if condition is poor and trend is static 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Field Exam 

Unit of Measure: Current conditions and trends 

Findings: 

Uplands – Since 1997, a dramatic reduction of upland monitoring efforts has occurred as 

more focus was spent on riparian and aquatic areas. Upland nested frequency 

monitoring was originally designed around a 5 to 7 year re-read cycle, but these efforts 

have been effectively removed from the monitoring priority. There were three nested 

frequency plots read in 2011; they were on the Lee Creek Allotment. Effort to relocate 

two previous transects on Lee Creek was unsuccessful despite the time spent. 

Therefore none of the three can be used to identify trend except anecdotally. 

Riparian – Greenline transects are designed to monitor the condition and trend of the 

riparian vegetation through analyzing the amount of late seral riparian plant 

communities. Current indications (as of close of FY 2011) are that the Forest is lagging 

behind schedule for riparian condition and trend monitoring. 

Summary of Greenline Monitoring 

Greenline Transects 2011 

PNC 12 

Late Seral 5 

Mid- Seral 3 

Early Seral 3 

Very Early Seral 0 

Upward Trend 11 

Static Trend1 6 

Downward Trend 4 

No Trend2 2 

Total 21 

1

any change less than 10 points 

2

first year read 

Range - 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Summary of Greenline Monitoring by District 2011 

Year 

PNC

LS

MS

ES

VES

Total

Up

StaticDown

Not

Apparent

No trend 

data

available

(new)

Total 

Challis 1 1 

Leadore 0 

Lost River 1 1 

Middle Fork 0 

North Fork 0 

Salmon-Cobalt 0 

Yankee Fork 0 

Variability: none to discuss for FY 2011. 

Evaluation: Comparisons and evaluations at the Forest level can be made on an annual 

basis by incorporating the findings from previous readings at the monitored sites, 

keeping in mind any changes in monitoring methods. 

Appropriateness: Continue as Forest Plan monitoring requirement. This monitoring, 

both riparian and uplands, is a cornerstone for resource management and Forest Plan 

implementation. 

RANGE: Compliance with Standards 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 

Compliance with 

forage utilization 

standards 

Annually Forage utilization exceeds allowable use 

by 10 percent (Challis Plan) 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon (amended) and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Field Exam. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Reports as required by 

Biological Opinions. 

Unit of Measure: Percent utilization on uplands. On riparian areas monitoring measures 

stubble height, streambank alteration, and use on riparian woody browse species; all on 

the greenline at designated monitoring areas. 

Findings: The table below displays the utilization monitoring performed on riparian 

study areas (in the form of stubble height and woody browse monitoring) and upland 

areas where utilization studies were performed on key forage grass species. 

Year Number of Monitored 

Pastures 

Number Pastures 

Meeting Standards 

Percent Pastures 

Meeting Standards 

Riparian 2011* 60 56 93% 

Riparian 2011 other 

than Lost River 

31 29 97% 

Uplands 2011* 5 5 100% 

Range - 36 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Uplands 2011 other 

than Lost River 

17 17 100% 

*2011- Lost River data only 

Variability: Previous consolidated Forest Plan monitoring reports (1995 and 1996) 

addressed the issue of Conditions Which Initiate Further Evaluations (i.e. “exceeding the 

standard by 10 percent”). This was incorrectly interpreted in previous reports and is not 

evaluated in this report. 

Conditions which may initiate further evaluation are dependent upon the individual site 

characteristics, resource conditions and extent of departure from standard (e.g. missing 

stubble height by less than .96” which is the confidence interval at 95%) and other 

influences on the site including management history. There also is variability between 

PIBO Team findings and MIM readings on some of the sites; this has not yet been fully 

evaluated as to the extent of the differences and the possible reasons why. 

Evaluation: Only measures of riparian use in grazed pastures are included in this 

report; riparian areas not scheduled for grazing are not included here as meeting 

standards. On-going improved efforts by permittees and agency personnel are expected 

to maintain the high number of pastures which meet the standards. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. This is a 

mandatory item agreed to during consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Forty seven of the 172 riparian units reported above 

are also reported in the annual Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) report on 

implementation monitoring performed for livestock grazing compliance in support of the 

effectiveness monitoring with the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinions (PIBO). 

RANGE: Forage Improvement 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured Monitoring Frequency Conditions Which Initiate Further Evaluations 

FP-3 Range Forage 

Improvement 

Before treatment, second and 

fifth year after treatment None 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Field Exam 

Unit of Measure: Acres 

Findings: This monitoring item was listed only in the Salmon Forest Plan. Forage 

improvement projects, although identified in the plan, have been non-existent since the 

mid-1990s, primarily because of lack of money and the need to comply with various 

environmental laws and regulations. This monitoring item will be reported only when this 

type of project occurs. No projects were undertaken in FY 2011. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Improvement projects will be evaluated if and when projects are completed. 

Range - 37 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Forage 

improvement projects will be evaluated should they occur in the future. 

RANGE: Predator Losses 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-4 Predator Losses Annually Losses exceed 2 percent 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Implementation 

Data Source: Permittee reports, field observation 

Unit of Measure: Each loss 

Findings: The annual permittee submitted range report encourages, but no longer 

requires the reporting of livestock losses from predators. This information is not readily 

or reliably available. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Data is not available 

Appropriateness: Discontinue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. This 

information is not readily or reliably available. 

RANGE: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FP-5 

FC-RONRW-2 Grazing Use As needed 

Grazing Use in Unique Vegetation Sites. 

Grazing use is altering natural ecological 

succession 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan; Frank Church – River of No Return 

Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Field observations and measurements. None to report in FY 2011. 

Unit of Measure: Qualitative and quantitative evaluation and interpretation 

Findings: Only two allotments reside within the Frank Church – River of No Return 

Wilderness. Although both allotments are monitored for grazing use, neither supports 

unique vegetation sites that warrant specific grazing use monitoring as a means to 

evaluate natural ecological succession. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Range - 38 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement even though 

specific grazing use monitoring as a means to evaluate natural ecological succession is 

not warranted. 

Range - 39 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

RECREATION: Developed Recreation – Site and Facility Condition 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Recreation Facility 

Condition Annually Deterioration of site beyond that anticipated under normal use. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Forest uses INFRA database to record annual surveys of 20% of 

recreation facilities. 

Unit of Measure: Dollars needed for the maintenance, repair, rehabilitation or 

replacement of developed recreation facilities. The 2007 Recreation Facilities 

Assessment includes alternative ways to fund deferred maintenance, ongoing 

maintenance, and long term capital investment projects. 

Findings: Appropriated funding (NFRW and CMFC) is insufficient to prevent the gradual 

decline in quality and lifespan of facilities at most developed recreation sites. Order of 

magnitude is that current funding levels are approximately 10-15% of the actual need. 

Infusions of CIP money and special initiatives (Recreation site improvement money for 

developed fee sites and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)) are helpful 

in improving the condition of the developed facilities. Required facility condition reports 

are entered into INFRA in a timely manner. 

Variability: Predicted performance was that the Forest would make steady improvement 

in the quality of our developed recreation sites. Other higher priority demands for limited 

funding have precluded a general trend toward improvement and have resulted in a 

general trend of decline. Based upon the recommendations in the Recreation Facilities 

Analysis, sites where significant improvements have been made are charging more for 

fees which, in turn are used back on the site for O&M. 

Evaluation: Data collected and reported through INFRA indicates investments needed 

for the operation and maintenance of all developed recreation facilities. Needs identified 

are then requested through the out year budget process. 

Appropriateness: Continue trend information as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement 

and a mandatory reporting item. INFRA provides the detailed information. Mandated 

target is 20% of all facilities inventoried each year. 

RECREATION: Developed Recreation – Amount and distribution of actual 

use compared with projections 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured Monitoring Frequency Conditions Which Initiate Further Evaluations 

FP-2 Recreation use at 

developed sites Annually Use beyond est. maximum level 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Recreation - 40 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Annual Recreation Information Management (RIM) Report (through 1995). 

In 2003, the Forest implemented a new mandatory survey and data collection program 

called the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project. 

Unit of Measure: Recreation Visitor Days (RVD’s) through 1995. 

Recreation Visits starting in 2003. 

Findings: Two reports on the National Visitor Use Monitoring process are available; one 

from FY2003 and one from FY2009. The “maximum” for developed recreation sites has 

not been reached. The sites are continually under- utilized on weekdays with most 

developed recreation sites being occupied about 45% of the time they are open. 

The use numbers shown below are totals for both the Salmon and Challis National 

Forests, and include developed, dispersed (now General Forest Area), and wilderness 

use. The average annual use for the two Forests as projected in the Forest Plans was 

approximately 1,079,000 Recreation Visitor Days (RVD’s). 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Year Use 

2003 466,835 

2009 276,300 

Variability: Any comparison between “old” RIM use in RVD’s, based entirely on office 

estimates, and “new” NVUM use in VISITS, based on scientific sampling techniques, is 

meaningless. 

Evaluation: Trend after two sampling years is down slightly and far under estimates for 

developed sites. 

Appropriateness: The new National Visitor Use Monitoring project provides the 

scientific sampling techniques necessary to obtain accurate visitor use estimates. 

Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and mandatory reporting item. 

Decrease the monitoring frequency from annually to a 5 year cycle per the national 

schedule for NVUM. Surveys and estimation of use will occur on a Forest-wide basis 

every five years. 

RECREATION: Developed Recreation – Facility Capacity (whether 

construction & reconstruction of facilities is keeping pace w/ demand) 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 

Occupancy versus 

capacity of dev. 

facilities 

Annually PAOT and PAOT Days greater than or 

equal to 90% of projected demand. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Recreation - 41 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Data Source: Annual Recreation Information Management (RIM) Report (through 1995). 

In 2003, the Forest implemented a new mandatory survey and data collection program 

called the National Visitor Use Monitoring project. 

Unit of Measure: Recreation Visits. 

Findings: There is no additional information to report. On the weekdays and non-holiday 

weekends developed sites continue to be under capacity across the Forest. Capacity of 

Developed Recreation site recreation is keeping up with demand. 

Variability: Growth in recreation use of the developed sites on the Forest is generally 

slower than previously predicted. 

Evaluation: Non-scientific sensing and observations of field going personnel indicate 

that there are virtually no developed recreation sites on the Forest that are fully occupied 

other than a couple of major Federal holidays each year. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. There is a 

component in the Infrastructure system that addresses use beyond capacity along with 

specific work tasks to be employed should use approach capacity. Further, should 

developed recreation sites ever become filled during more than major holiday weekends, 

the Forest would consider adding those specific developed sites to the National 

Recreation Reservation System. 

RECREATION: Developed Recreation – Soil and Vegetation Loss at 

Developed Sites 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-4 

Soil or vegetation losses 

at developed sites as a 

result of use. 

5 years 

Campsite condition below Class III 

using the Limits of Acceptable 

Change process. 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Transect photo points. 

Unit of Measure: Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) classes. 

Findings: There is no additional information to report. LAC was never implemented on 

the Forest. 

Variability: Significant degradation of soil or vegetation at developed sites has not 

occurred. 

Evaluation: There is a general sense that soil or vegetation conditions at developed 

recreation sites are not substantially different today than when the Forest Plan decision 

was made. The exception is for areas popular with motorized users who bring their ATV 

trailers to developed sites and create additional parking within the site for the trailer while 

they are camping. Also, developed sites which have not been upgraded to meet the size 

Recreation - 42 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

needs of contemporary motor homes and large party campers are being expanded by 

the users which results in soil and vegetation impacts. This issue is resolved as the sites 

are upgraded through CIP-type projects and through partnerships with the State to fund 

Recreational Vehicle (RV) sites. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. There is a 

component in the Infrastructure (INFRA) database that addresses site condition and 

setting along with identification of work tasks should such losses occur. 

RECREATION: Dispersed Recreation – Site Condition 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-5 Recreation Site 

Condition Annually 

Salmon – Dispersed sites rated Frissell 

Condition Class 4/5. 

Challis – Campsite condition below Class III 

using the Limits of Acceptable Change 

process. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Field inventory evaluating natural conditions at popular dispersed (nondeveloped) campsites using the Frissell method (Salmon NF) or the Limits of Acceptable 

Change (LAC) process (Challis NF). 

Unit of Measure: Frissell Condition Class rating (Salmon NF) or Limits of Acceptable 

Change (LAC) Condition Classes (Challis NF). 

Findings: Neither system, Frissell or LAC, has been implemented on either Forest in 

General Forest Areas (GFA’s). 

Variability: Predicted performance was that the two Forests would undertake a 

widespread inventory and evaluation of all popular dispersed camping spots in the 

General Forest Area. Inventory was never done. 

Evaluation: Although there is no data to evaluate for the above described item, the new 

Infrastructure (INFRA) program includes a component for natural setting in the General 

Forest Area. That part of INFRA is not currently populated for the forest, nor are 

protocols in place to do so outside of wilderness. Natural resource degradation as a 

result of recreation use is evaluated to determine rehabilitation or restoration needs on a 

specific site or location basis. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement recognizing data 

sources are outdated. Continue to identify adverse resource effects as a result of 

recreation use through the INFRA program. 

RECREATION: Dispersed Recreation – Amount and Distribution of Actual 

Use Compared with Projections 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

Recreation - 43 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FP-6 Recreation use in 

General Forest Area Annually Use beyond est. maximum level 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Annual Recreation Information Management (RIM) Report (through 1995). 

In 2003, the Forest implemented a new mandatory survey and data collection program 

called the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project. 

Unit of Measure: Recreation Visitor Days (RVD’s) through 1995. 

Recreation Visits starting in 2003. 

Findings: The use numbers shown below are totals for both the Salmon and Challis 

National Forests, and include developed, dispersed (now General Forest Area), and 

wilderness use. The average annual use for the two Forests as projected in the Forest 

Plans was approximately 1,079,000 Recreation Visitor Days (RVD’s). 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Year Use 

2003 466,835 

2009 276,300 

Variability: Any comparison between “old” RIM use in RVD’s, based entirely on office 

estimates, and “new” NVUM use in VISITS, based on scientific sampling techniques, is 

meaningless. 

Evaluation: Trend after two sampling years is down slightly and far under estimates for 

developed sites. 

Appropriateness: The new National Visitor Use Monitoring project provides the 

scientific sampling techniques necessary to obtain accurate visitor use estimates. 

Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and mandatory reporting item. 

Decrease the monitoring frequency from annually to a 5 year cycle per the national 

schedule for NVUM. Surveys and estimation of use will occur on a Forest-wide basis 

every five years. 

RECREATION: Dispersed Recreation – Off Road Vehicle Travel 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-7 

(Salmon) 

A01 

(Challis) 

Effects of off-road vehicle 

travel; Acres damaged by 

off highway vehicle (OHV) 

use to the point of triggering 

active rehabilitation 

Annually 

(Salmon) 

5 years 

(Challis) 

IDT Review indicates 

unacceptable increase; 

increase in substantiated 

public complaint letters; Acres 

increase by 10% over last 

inventory; 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon (V-16) and Challis (V-7) Forest Plans. See also Soil 

FP-3. 

Recreation - 44 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Implementation 

Data Source; Monitoring Techniques: Field observation, public comments, and public 

involvement with Travel Plan; acres needing rehabilitation 

Unit of Measure: Acres 

Findings: OHV use has increased dramatically during the past decade and resource 

damage has occurred from unmanaged motor vehicle travel. No specific monitoring of 

OHV damage was conducted prior to starting the Travel Planning process in 2007, 

therefore it is not definitely known if acres of damage have increased by 10 percent. 

Routes not added to the transportation system through travel plan implementation 

continue to be evaluated and a portion were evaluated in 2011. A total of 1157 routes 

(550 miles) were evaluated, mapped using GPS technology and pictures were taken of 

problem areas. These evaluations will be used to help prioritize route decommissioning 

where necessary and provide opportunities for decommissioning at the project level. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Soil disturbance, accelerated erosion, damage to vegetation and stream 

channels from ORVs is a concern on the Forest. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

NOTE: The Salmon-Challis National Forest has developed a travel management plan in 

FY10 under the direction of the Final Travel Management Rule. The Salmon-Challis 

National Forest has developed a travel management plan under the direction of the Final 

Travel Management Rule. Decisions were made at the local level about which roads, 

trails, and areas to designate for which type of vehicle use. Cross-country travel off 

designated routes is no longer permitted. Implementing the new designated route 

system will be a long and continuous education and enforcement effort and remains a 

forest priority. 

RECREATION: Dispersed Recreation – Trail Conditions 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-8 Trail condition 2% 

Annually* 

Trail mileage classed as substandard 

exceeds management objectives or increase 

in substantiated complaint letters from the 

public. 

*Mandated target is 2% of all trails inventoried each year. This is literally the NUMBER of trails 

not necessarily mileage percent. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Trail condition surveys. 

Recreation - 45 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Unit of Measure: Numbers of Trails*. Random sample of # of trails are to have full 

condition surveys done each year along their entire length. The INFRA database houses 

this information. 

Findings: Survey work was done along the randomly chosen trails in 2009 and prior 

years with the information about the condition of the trails and the support structures 

recorded in INFRA. The backlog of “deferred maintenance” on trails has led to increased 

partnerships and creative funding to reduce resource damage and to increase visitor 

safety along the trail system. FY2011 emphasis in INFRA was reporting of 

accomplishment of trails cleared/maintained rather than condition surveys 

Variability: Predicted performance was that the Forest would make steady improvement 

in the quality and condition of our trail system. 

Evaluation: Data collected and reported through INFRA indicates investments needed 

for the operation and maintenance of all trails. Needs identified are then requested 

through the out year budget process. Additional designated motorized routes were 

added forest-wide to comply with the travel planning decisions. 

Appropriateness: Continue trend information as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement 

and reporting according to INFRA emphasis and protocols. 

RECREATION: Wilderness – Campsite Condition 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-9 

Condition of 

wilderness 

campsites 

5 years 

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) analysis 

shows that the condition class has declined 

one class on 25% of inventoried sites. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Field inventory 

Unit of Measure: Campsites by Condition Class 

Findings: The revised Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

(2003) adopted the Frissell method of determining campsite condition. The Frissell 

system employs 5 classes ranging from Class I (most natural) to Class V (most 

modified). A survey and inventory of most campsites located within the Forests’ portion 

of the Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness (910 campsites) indicates that on a 

wilderness-wide basis approximately 20% of campsites are in Class I (182 camps), 27% 

in Class II (248 camps), 26% in Class III (236 camps), 20% in Class IV (183 camps) and 

7% are in Class V (61 camps). Direction is to undertake rehabilitation actions on Class 

IV and Class V sites. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Change monitoring method from a LAC based system to the Frissell 

system. Establish a 10 year cycle for repeat of survey. 

Recreation - 46 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Appropriateness: Continue Wilderness Campsite Condition as a Forest Plan 

monitoring requirement. The Frissell method for estimating condition classes will 

continue to be used. 

RECREATION: Wilderness – Amount and Distribution of Actual Use 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-10 Recreation use in 

designated Wilderness Annually Use beyond est. maximum level 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: In 2003, the Forest implemented a new mandatory survey and data 

collection program called the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project. 2009 was 

another survey year. 

Unit of Measure: Recreation Visits since 2003. 

Findings: The use numbers shown below are estimates with a “90% confidence level of 

+/- 30% “, and show wilderness visits with visitors exiting for the last time on the Salmon 

and Challis National forests. Wilderness visits for the Main Salmon River are counted on 

the Payette National Forest as visitors exit at that location. The average annual use for 

the two Forests as projected in the Forest Plans was approximately 374,000 Recreation 

Visitor Days (RVD’s). 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Year Use 

2003 34,178 

2009 18,536 

Variability: Comparison between “old” RIM use in RVD’s, based entirely on office 

estimates, and “new” NVUM use in VISITS, based on scientific sampling techniques, is 

meaningless. 

Evaluation: Trend information indicates some downward turn, with a fairly large 

variability. 

Appropriateness: The new National Visitor Use Monitoring project provides the 

scientific sampling techniques necessary to obtain accurate visitor use estimates. 

Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and mandatory reporting item. 

Decrease the monitoring frequency from annually to a 5 year cycle per the national 

schedule for NVUM. Surveys and estimation of use will occur on a Forest-wide basis 

every five years. 

Recreation - 47 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

RECREATION: Salmon Wild & Scenic River Management Plan – Recreation 

Segment – User Demands 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-11 

SWSR(rec)-1 

Reported conflicts 

between user 

groups 

Annually Recurring conflicts which could be 

resolved through regulations 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Written or verbal reports of conflicts. 

Unit of Measure: Each report. 

Findings: Conflicts within a user groups have occurred during spring and fall steelhead 

seasons when this portion of the forest receives Very High use. “Reserving spots” by 

leaving camp gear in unoccupied camps has become a problem. The Special Order for 

length of stay was relaxed from 14 days to 16 days to encompass 2 weekends, with a 

special emphasis on enforcement. The problem has been generally resolved. Capacity 

for commercial and non-commercial use needs to be addressed. Recreation section of 

the wild and scenic river needs a current management plan. 

Variability: Predicted growth in use of the Recreation segment of the Salmon Wild & 

Scenic River has occurred based on the changes in the Salmon fishing success. And 

increases in the fall at a time of year when the competition for camping spaces and dayuse parking spaces are at a premium. The fall season overlaps with traditional river use, 

private land access, and hunting season. 

Evaluation: This anticipated issue has developed as fishing pressure increases, and as 

competition for outfitter service days remains unevaluated when compared with private 

use of the river corridor. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and a mandatory 

reporting item. Continue to track at the Ranger District level. 

RECREATION: Salmon Wild & Scenic River Management Plan – Recreation 

segment – Allocation system 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-12 

SWSR(rec)-2 

Need for 

restrictions 

Annually Recurring conflicts which could be 

resolved through regulations or an 

allocation system 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Written or verbal reports of conflicts. 

Recreation - 48 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Unit of Measure: Each report. 

Findings: There is no need at the present time or in the foreseeable future, for a launch 

allocation system between private and commercial boating use on the Recreation 

segment of the Salmon Wild & Scenic River. However, a capacity study would indicate 

appropriate level of outfitted service days and overall corridor capacity. 

Variability: Predicted growth in use of the Recreation segment of the Salmon Wild & 

Scenic River has occurred and is very apparent in the spring and fall when steelhead 

anglers leave abandoned fires, garbage and recreational vehicles along the river corridor 

Evaluation: This anticipated issue has not developed as yet. Management plan will 

identify the options for managing use. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and a mandatory 

reporting item. Continue to track at the Ranger District level. 

RECREATION: Salmon Wild & Scenic River Management Plan –Recreation 

Segment – Boating Use 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-13 

SWSR(rec)-3 

Amount of boating use 

of the Recreation 

segment of the Salmon 

River 

Annually 

Recurring conflicts which could 

be resolved through regulations 

or an allocation system. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Voluntary self-registration system at boat launches supplemented by 

random observation. 

Unit of Measure: Number of boaters. 

Findings: Self-registration system was never implemented. 

Variability: Predicted growth in use of the Recreation segment of the Salmon Wild & 

Scenic River has occurred. 

Evaluation: This anticipated issue has not developed as yet. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and a mandatory 

reporting item. Continue to track at the Ranger District level. 

RECREATION: Salmon Wild and Scenic River Management Plan –Wild 

Segment – Visitor use 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-14 

SWSR(wild)-8 

Amount of recreation use of 

the Wild segment of the Annually Use beyond estimated maximum level 

Recreation - 49 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Salmon River 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Use data during the controlled permit season is available from the 

permits. 

Unit of Measure: Recreation Visits since 2006. 

Findings: The most accurate information available for use of the Wild segment of the 

Salmon Wild and Scenic River is the mandatory permit system which is in place from 

June 20 through September 7 of each year. The permit tracks number of people in the 

party as well as their length of stay, type of water craft, and some of the reservable 

campsites for both float boats and motorized boats. 

Variability: Use figures during the control season continue to be our most reliable 

information during that season. 

Evaluation: Use varies based on many factors, and the high use on the weeks before 

and after the “control” season is a trend that continues to be monitored by the district. 

Boaters tend to crowd the calendar at both ends of the control period, and often the 

week before and the week after control season the number of launches per day is quite 

high which has a ripple effect on downriver campsites. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Continue to track 

float use levels during the control season at the Ranger District level. 

RECREATION: Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan – Middle Fork of the Salmon River – Launch Allocation 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-15 

FCWMP-1 

Allocation of launches 

between outfitted and 

non-outfitted groups on 

the Middle Fork of the 

Salmon River 

Annually 

Significant number of unused 

launches by either group or 

significant changes in demand 

for launches by either group. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Ranger District records of launches used by outfitted and non-outfitted 

groups. 

Unit of Measure: Launch 

Findings: Current allocated launches are fully utilized by both groups. 

Variability: Actual performance matches predicted performance. 

Recreation - 50 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Evaluation: Management Plan revision for the Frank Church – River of No Return 

Wilderness (2003) maintained the current allocation of launches on the Middle Fork of 

the Salmon River. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement and a mandatory 

reporting item. Continue to track at the Ranger District level and make adjustments as 

needed through standard management actions. 

Recreation: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWRecreation 

Condition of campsites 

1. Frissell Campsite Ratings 

2. Modified – Cole Campsite 

Condition Surveys 

Annually 

monitor 10% 

of campsites 

For land based campsites, 

no more than 5% are in 

Frissell Condition Class V, 

no more than 20% in 

Class IV, and no more 

than 30% in Class III; 25% 

or more in Frissell 

Condition Class II and 

20% or more in Class I 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Frissell campsite conditions surveys and weed inventory forms 

Unit of Measure: Frissell campsite condition standards 

Findings: 

Location of Censused Camps and Yearly Work Completed 

Year High Lakes River General 

Wilderness 

Total inventories 

conducted 

2011 106 0 0 106 

Most Recent Frissel Condition 

Frissel Class High Lakes River General Wilderness 

# % # % # % 

1 62 16 22 18 48 32 

2 109 28 18 15 55 36 

3 102 26 41 33 33 22 

4 62 16 39 31 10 7 

5 26 7 4 3 4 3 

Insufficient 

Data 28 7 0 0 0 0 

Recreation - 51 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Variability: The protocol and a compatible data collection process needs to be 

coordinated needs to be finalized across the FCRONRW and a strategy to deal with 

camps that no longer merit a Frissel rating, have been effectively made unusable due to 

downfall or other natural causes, or that cannot be located needs to be developed. 

Evaluation: The Frank Church Management Plan provides direction on the relative 

percentage of each condition class campsites may occupy before corrective action 

becomes mandatory. For upland (general wilderness and high lakes) campsites, no 

more than 5% may be in Condition Class 5, no more than 20% in Class 4, and no more 

than 30% in Class 3. As of 2011, there were 6% in Class 5, but are in compliance with 

respect to other condition classes. 101 campsites along the Middle Fork of the Salmon 

River are assigned to boaters floating the river, and the River Program has extensive 

use data on these camps. 126 campsites have been inventoried within the boundaries of 

the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The Frank Church Management Plan states that 

campsites along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River will be managed such that no more 

than 45% are Class 4 and no more than 7% are Class 5. These objectives are being 

met. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Recreation: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency 

Monitoring 

Objective 

FCRONRWRecreation 

1. Number of launches by type 

2. People per party 

3. PAOT levels 

4. Encounter levels between different user 

groups 

5. Outfitter and Guide percent of allocation 

used – launches used 

6. Number of Kicker Motors used (Salmon 

River) 

7. Campsite condition surveys using Frissell 

and Modified – Cole Methods 

Annually 

monitor 10% 

of campsites 

River 

campsites 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Frissell campsite conditions surveys 

Unit of Measure: Number of groups by user 

Findings: 

Middle Fork Salmon River Permits 

Year Private Permits Comm Permits Avg. Pvt 

Group Size 

Avg. Comm. 

# % # % Group Size

2011 429 64 242 36 8.9 21.6 

Recreation - 52 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Main Salmon River Permits 

Year 

Private 

Permits Comm Permits Avg. Pvt 

Group Size 

Avg. Comm. 

Group Size 

Kicker 

Motors 

# % # % 

2011 425 75 140 25 8.7 17 0 

Frissel data reported above. 

Variability: The numbers of permits for the main Salmon River are constrained during 

the permit lottery season and are limited to seven launches Middle Fork Salmon River 

year-round. Party sizes are also limited for both rivers year-round and numbers cannot 

be legally exceeded. 

Evaluation: The objectives for the campsite monitoring are being met. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Recreation: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWJet Boats 

1. Jetboats launched 

2. People per party 

3. Length of stay per party 

Annually 

monitor 10% 

of campsites 

River campsites 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Permit tracking forms 

Unit of Measure: Number of jetboats 

Findings: 

Main Salmon River Jetboat Permits 

Year # Jetboat Permits # of People Length of Stay 

2011 375 1,383 Unk. 

Variability: During the control season, there can be up to six private jetboats on the river 

at one time. There is no limit on the number of boats outside of the control period. The 

number of jetboats is highly variable based upon factors such as water levels and new 

rapids. 

Evaluation: The accounting of jetboat use is improving. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Recreation - 53 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS: Number and Acres 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

TR-1 Number of RNAs 

and total acres Annually N/A 

Monitoring Requirement: This item is identified as a Tracking Item 

Monitoring Type: Tracking/Implementation 

Data Source: Establishment records 

Unit of Measure: Number and acreage 

Findings: All the proposed RNAs identified in the two Forest Plans have been 

designated except for the Deadwater RNA which was dismissed due to excessive nonnative vegetation that detracted from its RNA characteristic. No more RNAs are 

proposed. 

Salmon and Challis Forest RNAs (Acres): 

RNA Acres RNA Acres 

Allan Mountain 1,650 Surprise Valley 1,470 

Kenney Creek 1,690 Merriam Lake Basin 740 

Davis Canyon 1,215 Middle Canyon 2,200 

Dry Gulch – Forge Creek 3,235 Smiley Mountain 3,080 

Frog Meadows 330 Mahogany Creek 3,650 

Mill Lake 720 Cache Creek Lakes 795 

Bear Valley 2,530 Mystery Lake 517 

Colson Creek 280 Sheep Mountain 1,542 

Dome Lake 1,415 Iron Bog 434 

Gunbarrel 1,600 Meadow Canyon (part of Targhee NF) 3,880 

Soldier Lakes 155 TOTAL ACRES 33,128 

Variability: N/A 

Evaluation: N/A 

Appropriateness: Discontinue as a Forest Plan monitoring and reporting item. Tracking 

and implementation of RNA establishment has been complete. 

Research Natural Areas - 54 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

SOIL: Natural Erosion 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Natural soil erosion 

for on-site loss Annually Exceeding local soil loss tolerance levels 

Monitoring Requirement: This is not a required monitoring item in either the Challis or 

Salmon Forest Plans. This is addressed as a research need in the Salmon Forest Plan 

(II-52). See also FP-7 Naturally Unstable Areas in this report. 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Forest Erosion Trough Report and Engineering Road Crew Reports 

Unit of Measure: Tons/acre 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for FY2011. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: The collection of natural erosion rates was a priority for some time so 

that the Forest had local data for input into Erosion Prediction Models, such as BOISED. 

In recent years new erosion prediction models are being used, such as WEPP. Natural 

erosion rates are available in the WEPP model so there is no longer a need to collect 

baseline data for natural erosion rates. 

SOIL: Ground Disturbance Activities with the Potential to Alter Soil 

Productivity 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-2 Activities that alter soil 

productivity 

Appropriate sample of 

projects 

Detrimental soil productivity 

levels 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis (V-12, #2) and Salmon (V-9, #4) Forest Plans. This 

monitoring item is closely related to and tiers to monitoring item Water FP-4. 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Effectiveness 

Data Source: Field measurements, observations, and soil quality assessments 

Unit of Measure: Ground cover; soil compaction 

Findings: Beginning in 2003, the Soil Quality Assessment process was initiated which 

includes qualitative observations and quantitative sampling of erosion indicators, ground 

cover, and soil compaction (bulk density). 

Soil - 55 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FY 2011 Monitoring 

During FY 2011 eight project areas were monitored for impacts to the soil resource due 

to forest management activities and the effectiveness of applied BMPs was evaluated. 

Types of observation included visual observations and photo monitoring, systematic 

sampling, core samples, surface cover transects, soil quick pit descriptions. Indicators of 

soil health observed and monitored included soil structure, compaction, hydrophobicity, 

surface erosion (sheet rills, gullies), active erosion, ground cover, soil displacement, soil 

deposition, coarse woody debris, burned soil severity and vegetation community 

composition. 

Grazing and allotment management 

Spud Marco Allotment 

Past harvest, mining and recreation activities 

Upper North Fork HFRA project area 

Sawmill Canyon HFRA project area 

Withington focus watershed 

Copper Canyon minerals exploration project area 

Suppression tactics, suppression rehab and fire effects 

Indian Creek Fire suppression tactics, suppression rehab and fire effects 

Saddle Complex suppression tactics, suppression rehab and fire effects 

Salt Fire suppression tactics, suppression rehab and fire effects 

Variability: Not applicable to FY 2011 monitoring. 

Evaluation: The general results of the monitoring and soil quality assessments indicated 

no unanticipated short-term or long-term alteration of water or soil productivity and that 

current best management practices when applied correctly, are effective at eliminating or 

minimizing adverse effects. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Information 

collected after implementation of activities is used to determine the effectiveness of the 

projects design features and mitigation measures. It also establishes a feedback 

mechanism for other forest specialists associated with similar projects. There is a direct 

relationship with the goals, direction, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plans. 

SOIL: ORV Damage 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 Sequential photo points 

of ORV damage Annual Closure of areas upon evidence of watershed damage 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan (V-9). See also Recreation FP-7. 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Implementation 

Data Source: Standard soil monitoring; field observations; photo points 

Unit of Measure: Photo interpretation and evaluation 

Soil - 56 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Travel Plan implementation- unauthorized route surveys 

Findings: Routes not added to the transportation system through travel plan 

implementation continue to be evaluated and a portion were evaluated in 2011. A total of 

1157 routes (550 miles) were evaluated, mapped using GPS technology and pictures 

were taken of problem areas. These evaluations will be used to help prioritize route 

decommissioning where necessary and provide opportunities for decommissioning at 

the project level. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Soil disturbance and accelerated erosion from ORVs is a concern on the 

Forest. The use of ORVs both on and off roads and trails has increased over the last 10 

years. National direction has mandated all national forests review their transportation 

systems due to resource and safety concerns. The Salmon-Challis, during FY 2009, 

published its final EIS – Travel Planning and OHV Route Designation. System and nonsystem routes were evaluated and a system of routes was designated for use. The 

Salmon-Challis N.F. is continuing to implement changes in use patterns through maps, 

signage, and enforcement. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Not only has ORV 

use increased but the types of ORVs have increased since the present Forest Plan was 

implemented. User created roads and trails have the potential to alter soil productivity, 

increase erosion, and alter hydrologic functioning of the soil. There is a direct 

relationship with the goals, direction, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plans. 

SOIL: Benchmark Soils 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-4 

Recognize and establish 

benchmark soils that are 

representative of large areas 

Continuous 

Initiate further investigation after 

establishing representative 

sampling sites 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan (V-9) 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Implementation 

Data Source: Land Types; Land Type Associations 

Unit of Measure: Number 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for FY 2011. Numerous Land Type 

Associations have been identified as benchmark soil types representing the larger, more 

dominant land types within the Forest. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Soil map unit descriptions accompany the various soil and land type 

surveys that have been accomplished over the years on the Forest. Map unit 

descriptions identify and describe the various characteristics and properties of the major 

soil types within the map unit. At the project level, the soil characteristics at the site level 

Soil - 57 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

are compared to those described for the Land Type. Any significant differences are 

evaluated and used to modify the proposed project design to eliminate or minimize 

adverse effects to the soil resource. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. However, the 

recognition and establishment of formalized “benchmark” soil types representing larger 

areas is not necessary. Representative soil types are already identified as part of the 

Land Type and soil mapping process. 

SOIL: Comparing Erosion for Various Forest Practices 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-5 Quantified project level 

erosion sampling 4 plots per year Exceeding local soil loss tolerance level evaluations 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis (V-12, item #1) and Salmon (V-9, item #3) Forest 

Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Effectiveness 

Data Source: Erosion troughs; fabric cloth; 3-F erosion bridge method 

Unit of Measure: Tons/acre 

Findings: No additional information to report for FY 2011. No project level quantified 

erosion studies have been performed. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Not recommended to Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring 

requirement. 

Due to the episodic nature of soil erosion it is very difficult to quantitatively evaluate soil 

erosion rates at the project level. Because of this difficulty the Intermountain Regional 

Office developed a Soil-Disturbance protocol to provide a tool to identify and evaluate 

soil erosion and disturbance. This protocol includes sampling of erosion indicators, 

ground cover, soil compaction, and burn severity. 

The Soil Disturbance Protocol has been demonstrated to provide a statistically valid 

evaluation of the effects on soil disturbance with minimal effort and time involved. Direct 

measurement of erosion rates at the project level was time intensive and often did not 

provide a statistically valid evaluation of the effects on the soil resource. 

SOIL: Soil Survey Activities 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-6 Soil survey activities Annually +/- 25% of Plan direction 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan (V-9) 

Soil - 58 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Progress reviews, Management Attainment Report 

Unit of Measure: Acres surveyed 

Findings: No additional information to report for FY 2011. 

Variability: The opportunity to plan and complete soil surveys is totally dependent upon 

a reliable budget source which has not been available in the recent past.
 

Evaluation: Mapping could be addressed in the future if funding becomes available. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Should funding
 

become available and soil surveys become a priority, reportable units will be adequately 

monitored and reported. 

SOIL: Naturally Unstable Areas 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-7 Naturally unstable 

areas 

Annual Sites which are not stable due to natural 

conditions 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan (V-9). See also Soil FP-1 – Natural 

Erosion. 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness/Validation 

Data Source: Observations of incidences; landslide data files 

Unit of Measure: Number of events 

Findings: No instances of landslides or debris flows were recorded during FY2007. 

During FY 2008 a large rockslide closed a section of the Middle Fork Trail near Simplot 

Ranch in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. The rockslide contained 

about 100 tons of material and completely obliterated a 30-40 foot long section of the 

trail. Several areas of natural soil instability are present throughout the Salmon-Challis 

National Forest. Incidences of natural debris flows have been recorded and 

photographed. Landslide prone areas have been identified on topographic maps 

indicating where historical mass wasting prone soils are located. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Knowing where natural soil instability is located and the types of soils prone 

to instability assist Forest specialists in planning and managing Forest activities. 

Appropriateness: Continue as Forest Plan requirement. These sites should be 

monitored by maintaining a photographic report file of incidences and maintaining the 

landslide prone map files as additional areas are further investigated. 

Soil - 59 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

SOIL: Vegetation and Soil Conditions: Salmon Wild and Scenic River 

Management Plan (Wild Segment): Campsites 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-8 

SWSR (wild)-2 

Vegetation and soil 

stability Every three years Detrimental site instability from activities 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan; Salmon Wild and Scenic River 

Management Plan 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Photo points; field observations 

Unit of Measure: Qualitative interpretation 

Findings: Annually the Forest’s Wilderness and Rivers staff monitors a portion of the 

river camps in the Wild and Scenic River Segments to evaluate the effects of the 

campsites and social trails on the vegetation, soils and heritage resources. This 

evaluation is done using the Frissell Condition Class, a general camp condition rating 

protocol. If adverse impacts are occurring they document the effects and mitigate them if 

possible. Mitigation may include restricting or eliminating use in a specific area by 

moving natural debris, such as trees or limbs, to create physical barriers. If unacceptable 

impacts are occurring river camps may be closed for a time to promote revegetation or 

to protect heritage resources. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Trends in 

campsite expansion and extent of social trails are increasing. There is a direct 

relationship with the goals, direction, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plans. 

Soil - 60 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

TIMBER: Offer, Sold, and Cut 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-1 Timber Sold Annually Timber offer not progressing as 

scheduled 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: PTSAR, PSS, TCS, and TSPIRS Reports (PSS, TCS, TSPIRS no longer 

exist). PTSAR reports are current sources for FY06-09 figures. 

Unit of Measure: Volume: MBF; (Area: Acres no longer reported) 

Findings: Refer to the table on the next page for a summary of the volumes offered, 

sold, and cut on the individual Salmon and Challis Units and a total for the combined 

Forests. 

Planned logging is listed in the Salmon and Challis Forest Plans and is stored in our 

Timber Activity Control System (TRACS) and Forest Plan Timber Summary (FPTS) 

Area. The volume in Thousand Board Feet (MBF) and the Acres sold in a given year are 

stored in the Program Sale Statement (PSS) Area and Timber Cut and Sold (TCS). 

Two categories of timber volume exist: 1) The Allowable Sale Quantity, which is the 

quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of suitable land covered by the Forest 

Plan for a time period specified by the Plan. This quantity is usually expressed on an 

annual basis as the “average annual sale quantity.” 2) The second category of volume is 

an estimated amount of volume called Non-Chargeable Volume in TRACS. This is 

volume from trees not used in the determination of ASQ, such as fuelwood from logging 

residue, etc. These two categories are listed as “ASQ” and “NON-ASQ” in the tables on 

the following pages. 

North Zone Unit “Planned” South Zone Unit “Planned” 

MBF ACRES MBF ACRES 

ASQ 21,630 ASQ 3,000 

Non ASQ 2,800 Non ASQ 2,300 

Total 24,430 4,635 Total 5,300 1,575 

Volume Sources: 

Salmon Forest Plan Page VII-A-8, EIS Page IV-34, Page II-137 

Sawtimber = 21,147 MBF + Roundwood = 169 MCF x 3.3 = 558 = about 21,700 ASQ. 

The TRACS 21,630 value is due to rounding. 

Fuelwood (NON-ASQ) = 814 MCF x 3.47 = 2,800 MBF
 

Challis Forest Plan Page IV-39. ASQ = 3,000 MBF. NON-ASQ = 2,250, 2,300 in 

TRACS. Acres sources: Salmon Plan Page III-1, EIS Page IV-34. Sawtimber = 4,012. 

Challis Plan Page IV-40, Sawtimber = 550 acres. Acres are increased in TRACS for 

Roundwood and Fuelwood. 

Timber - 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

MBF VOLUME: Offered, Sold, and Cut. ACRES Sold and Cut; North and South Zone Units 

FY07 through FY11
 

COMBINED SCF 

FY SOURCE OF INFO MBF OFFER MBF or AC 

CUT MBF or AC CUT 

PTSAR TCS TSPIRS 

2011 Total Volume 12,080 12,429 No acres cut 

report 

Variability: Salmon offered and sold ASQ volumes were only 16% of the Forest Plan 

average, the bulk of which occurred between 1997 and 2001. Challis’ sold ASQ has 

been right at the planned level until 1998, and then dropped to approximately 53% of the 

Forest Plan average. 

Evaluation: Section 7 Consultation for salmon under ESA began late in 1992, and 

marked the beginning of reduced volume offer on the Salmon Unit. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement as a means of 

displaying the trends of timber sales from Forest Plan projections. 

TIMBER: Fuelwood Sold 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 Fuelwood cut Annually Significant drop in volume indicating 

a change in supply/demand 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: TIM Database 2011 Unit of Measure: MBF 

Findings: 

MBF Wood Sold 2011 

North Zone 

Commercial FW 0 

Personal Use Fuelwood 2,633 

Free Use Fuelwood 0 

South Zone 

Commercial FW 0 

Personal Use Fuelwood 2,814 

Free Use Fuelwood 64 

Variability: The Proclaimed Salmon National Forest did not offer any free-use fuelwood 

after 2009 and did not have any active commercial fuelwood areas since 2007. 

Evaluation: The volume of personal use fuelwood sold has steadily increased for both 

ends of the forest. Free-Use fuelwood continues to be part of the South Zone program, 

Timber - 62 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

although the volume is highly variable dependent on year. More commercial fuelwood 

areas are needed across both zones. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

TIMBER: Reforestation and Stand Improvement 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 Reforestation and Timber 

Stand Improvement Annually Significant reduction in Forest Plan outputs 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: TRACS and Reforestation/TSI Annual Accomplishment Report 

Unit of Measure: Acres 

Findings: 

North Zone 

Forest Plan (FP) Year FP Annual Output 2011 

Planting 0 

Site Prep Nat 1870 0 

Total Reforestation 0 

*Cert w/o S.P. Plantation Cert. 1500 

Release 

Thin 

0 

0 

Total TSI 950 0 

*Note: The reforestation goal in the Forest Plan was based on planting and site preparation for 

naturals. Certification of natural regeneration without site prep was not included. 

South Zone 

Forest Plan (FP) Year FP Annual Output 2011 

Planting 0 

Site Prep Nat 653 0 

Total Reforestation 0 

*Cert. w/o S.P. 1660 

Release 

Thin 

0 

596 

Total TSI 69 596 

Variability: Long term reforestation (exclusive of certification of natural regeneration 

without site prep) has been highly variable and ranges from a low of zero acres in 

numerous years to 1,119 acres in 1994. Timber stand improvement has been equally 

variable, ranging from a low of zero acres in numerous years to 677 acres in 1989. 

Timber - 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Evaluation: Annual reforestation and timber stand improvement accomplishments are 

subject to many yearly variables. These include changing budgets, cutting levels, 

seedling availability, and even the type of fire season (in emergency situations, project 

crews are pulled away to battle forest fires). Long-term trends are more meaningful. 

Anadromous fish listings in the early 1990’s along with Section 7 consultation 

requirements marked the beginning of decreased timber volumes offered for sale on the 

Forest, thus reforestation needs. Timber stand improvement has likewise been impacted 

by the Canada Lynx listing in 2000 and subsequent 2007 lynx management amendment 

which guides (limits) TSI activities in habitat areas. Recent classification of the SalmonChallis National Forest as secondary (not currently occupied) habitat may present 

opportunities for increased TSI activity. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement as a means to 

evaluate long-term trends of forest management. 

TIMBER: Restocking 

Monitoring Item Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which 

Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-4 Adequate Restocking 

within 5 years 

Annually 5 years after 

final removal 

Suitable lands fail to 

be regenerated within 

5 years 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Validation 

Data Source: Reforestation and TSI Accomplishment Report, Table 22 – 1988-1996 

Silva Report (Management Attainment Report) – 1997-2004 

Unit of Measure: Percent acres adequately stocked 

Findings: 

Final 

Harvest Acres Acres Planted 

Percent 

Stocked 

Percent 

Unstocked 

Acres 

Replanted 

Survival 

Transect Acres Year Certification 

Year 1st Yr 3rd Yr 

2000 380 0 100 0 0 48 337 05 576 

2001 250 0 100 0 0 193 363 06 119 

2002 419 0 100 0 0 205 1328 07 439 

2003 31 225 100 0 0 226 495 08 171 

2004 51 0 100 0 0 222 0 09 12 

2005 0 0 100 0 0 88 162 10 44 

2006 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 11 0 

2006 

(Burned) 0 570 100 0 0 570 0 11 5080 

Total 1131 982 

(1552) 2685 1361 (6441) 

Variability: Variability is low since restocking is a focused effort. Certification is required 

on all regeneration harvest units. 

Timber - 64 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Evaluation: Successful regeneration has continued across the forest over the last five 

years. Focus planting areas have shifted from cut over areas to evaluating and 

replanting high productivity burn areas to return them to production. 2011 spike in acres 

certified as stock is a result of these evaluation looking for natural regeneration and 

identifying future acres that need planted across those burn areas. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

TIMBER: Openings 

Monitoring Item Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which 

Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-5 Maximum size of 

openings Annually Openings exceed maximum size 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: STARS and RMRIS data bases 

Unit of Measure: Number of even age units greater than 40 acres 

Findings: Maximum size limit for openings created in one logging operation by evenaged management is 40 acres. Exceptions are covered in the Regional Guide. The 

Regional Forester’s approval is required for openings over 40 acres. Forest Plan 

Reference: Salmon Plan, Page IV-41; Challis Plan, Page IV-16. 

Year Total Acres Sold TIM 

Worksheet # of CC Units Size of CC Units over 40 acres 

2011 918 0 0 

NOTE: Mine and road clearing projects are included in total acres sold but do not meet the 

definition of even-aged management. 

Variability: During 2011, no even age units over 40 acres have occurred on the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Evaluation: Since 1992, neither zone on the SCNF has exceeded a 40 acre clearcut 

size. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Determine if 

objectives (i.e. insect and disease control) are being met by limiting openings to less 

than 40 acres. “The conditions which initiate further evaluations” should be changed to 

reflect monitoring for effectiveness. 

Timber - 65 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Trails: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWTrails 

1. Percent of trails inventoried 

annually 

2. Percent of system trails 

identified by condition survey 

to have resource problems 

3. Trail miles cleared annually 

Complete 10 

percent 

annually 

Trails provide access to 

the wilderness for a 

variety of user groups and 

experience levels. No 

more than 20 % of the 

system trails have 

identified resource 

problems 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Trail condition survey and miles cleared annually from INFRA database 

Unit of Measure: Miles 

Findings: Survey work is done along the randomly chosen trails and the information 

about the condition of the trails and the support structures was recorded in INFRA. The 

backlog of “deferred maintenance” on trails has led to increased partnerships and 

creative funding to reduce resource damage and to increase visitor safety along the trail 

system. 

FCRONRW Trails Inventoried and Cleared 

Year Trails Inventoried 

(Miles) 

Trails w/ Resource 

Problems (Miles) 

Trails Cleared 

(Miles) 

2011 - - SZ=170, NZ=51 

Variability: Predicted performance was that the Forest would make steady improvement 

in the quality and condition of our trail system. 

Evaluation: Data collected and reported through INFRA indicates investments needed 

for the operation and maintenance of all trails. Needs identified are then requested 

through the out year budget process. Additional designated motorized routes were 

added forest-wide to comply with the travel planning decisions. 

Appropriateness: Continue trend information as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement 

and a mandatory reporting item. INFRA provides the detailed information. 

Trails - 66 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

VISUAL RESOURCE: Compliance with Visual Quality Objectives. 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Any management 

activity or project Annually 

Significant failure to meet assigned 

Visual Quality Objectives on a project 

basis. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Field observation or photo documentation of completed projects. 

Unit of Measure: A project. 

Findings: All projects monitored and evaluated to date have generally met their 

assigned Visual Quality Objectives. Specific projects have used outside Landscape 

Architect for specialized work. One forest Plan amendment (site-specific) was done to 

allow timber sale activities near the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement pending 

implementation of the new and improved Scenery Management System (at forest Plan 

Revision) 

Visual Resource - 67 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

WATER: Substrate Depth Fines 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 

Fish Habitat 

(Substrate 

Depth Fines) 

Annually to 

Biannually 

Failure to meet Forest Plan sediment standards 

of State fisheries goals; 20 percent change in 

habitat quality 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon (item #7) and Challis (item #2) Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Effectiveness 

Data Source: Watershed files; Annual Watershed and Fisheries Monitoring Report 

Unit of Measure: Percent substrate fines by depth (Relation to Forest Plan and State 

fisheries goals); Trend 

Findings: Data shown from 2007 through 2011 to derive trend over the reporting period. 

Zone Year Stream Stations 

Surveyed Stations Meeting Plan Standards or Goals 1/, 2/ 

Salmon 2011 15 9 (60%) 

Challis 2011 22 17 (77%) 

1/ Salmon National Forest Plan Goal: 20 percent fines by depth in anadromous habitats; 28.7 

percent fines by depth in resident habitats. 

2/ Challis National Forest Plan Standard: 30 percent fines by depth in all perennial habitats. 

Variability: Analysis of the results of 5 years of core sampling operations on the 

Salmon/Challis N.F. streams has indicated a generally high level of both spatial and 

temporal variability of depth fine levels in forest streams. Besides land and resource 

management activities, factors known to exert significant influence on observed levels of 

substrate fines include basic geology and geomorphic factors such as parent geology, 

watershed aspect and channel type, and natural events such as drought, wildfire, 

excessive runoff flows, or isolated high intensity storm events. These factors must all be 

considered in any cause and effect analysis on stream substrate sediment levels. 

Statistical analysis on subsets of the core sampling data from the Salmon/Challis N.F. 

suggests that, within the range of values observed, changes of less than five percent 

fines on an absolute basis, or 20 percent fines on a relative basis, do not indicate a 

statistically significant change in substrate conditions. 

Evaluation: As identified in the accompanying table, 2011 core sampling operations 

indicated that 62 percent of the total inventoried Salmon Zone streams, and 48 percent 

of the total inventoried Challis Zone streams have downward trends for depth fines in 

spawning habitat. Cumulatively, for the 2011 monitoring there were 9 out of 15 (60%) 

stations that meet Salmon Zone Forest Plan sediment goal and 17 out of 22 (77%) that 

meet the Challis Zone Forest Plan sediment standard. Differences in the percentage 

numbers between Salmon and Challis Zones are in part attributed to the more stringent 

goal identified for anadromous waters in the Salmon National Forest Plan. Sampling 

crews who surveyed both North and South zone waters found no readily observable 

differences in stream characteristics between the two areas. 

Water - 68 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items	 FY11 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Despite a 

relatively high level of variability due to the influence of natural events, levels of 

substrate depth fines in Forest streams are widely acknowledged as an indicator of the 

basic production capabilities of fish spawning and incubation habitats. Although relatively 

labor intensive, the McNeil core sampling methodology employed by the forest is among 

the most objective, repeatable, and biologically relevant of the various methods utilized 

to assess fish spawning habitat conditions of Forest streams. Ongoing consultations with 

the NOAA Fisheries additionally include identification of sediment trends in Chinook 

salmon spawning habitats as a principal term and condition of concurrence with 

Biological Assessments for Salmon/Challis N.F. watersheds. 

WATER: Best Management Practices; Water Quality (Temperature) 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Condition Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 Water Quality (Water 

Temperature) Annually 

Exceedence of PACFISH, INFISH or 

State Water Temperature Standards or 

Guidelines 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon (item #1) and Challis (item #1) Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Effectiveness 

Data Source: Watershed files; Annual Watershed and Fisheries Monitoring Report 

Unit of Measure: Water Temperature (Seasonal Max/Min; Incidence of exceedence of 

PACFISH of INFISH Standards or State Water Quality Beneficial Use Criteria for 

coldwater biota and salmonid spawning) 

Standards: 

I. State of Idaho Beneficial Use Water Temperature Criteria 

A. Coldwater Biota: Water temperatures of 22 degrees C (71.6 degrees F) or 

less with a maximum daily average of no greater than 19 degrees C (66.2 

degrees F) 

B. Salmonid Spawning: Water temperatures of 13 degrees C (55.4 degrees F) 

or less with a maximum daily average no greater than 9 degrees C (48.2 

degrees F) (during identified spawning /incubation period) 

II. PACFISH Water Temperature Criteria 

A. Trend: No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7 day 

moving average of daily maximum water temperature measured as the 

average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest consecutive seven 

day period) 

B. Migration/Rearing: Maximum water temperatures below 64 degrees F (17.8 

degrees C) within migration and rearing habitats 

Water - 69 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items	 FY11 

C. Spawning: Maximum water temperatures below 60 degrees F (15.6 degrees 

C) within spawning habitats 

III. INFISH Water Temperature Criteria 

A. Trend: No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7 day 

moving average of daily maximum water temperature measured as the 

average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest consecutive seven 

day period). 

B. Adult Holding: Maximum water temperatures below 59 degrees F (15 

degrees C) within adult holding areas. 

C. Spawning/Rearing: Maximum water temperatures below 48 degrees f (8.8 

degrees C) within spawning and rearing habitats. 

Findings: Water temperature monitoring is no longer performed as baseline monitoring 

across the Forest due to time constraints and accessibility. Temperature data is obtained 

at the project level where activities may potentially impact water temperature. 

(See table on following page) 

Water Temperature Data 2011 

Year 

Stations 

Meeting 

Idaho 

Coldwater 

Biota 

Criteria? 

Stations 

Meeting 

Idaho 

Salmonid 

Spawning 

Criteria? 

Stations 

Meeting 

PACFISH 

Rearing 

Criteria? 

Stations 

Meeting 

PACFISH 

Spawning 

Criteria? 

Stations 

Meeting 

INFISH 

Rearing 

Criteria? 

Stations 

Meeting 

INFISH 

Spawning 

Criteria? 

Spring Spring 

87/94 93/97 

92% 96% 

99/111 

89% 

29/110 

26% 2011 110/111 99% 

Fall 

91/110 

83% 

104/109 

95% 

Fall 

104/110 

95% 

Chinook Chinook 

7/12 10/12 

58% 83% 

Variability: Thermograph results have shown water temperature regimes to be highly 

variable from year to year, particularly with the highly variable climactic patterns 

observed during the past decade. Yearly differences in absolute summer maxima 

spanning more than ten degrees have been observed in individual streams over the 

course of the monitoring period. Data to date suggests that absolute summer water 

temperature maxima may be as influenced by winter snow pack levels and consequent 

summer flow levels as they are by summer air temperature regimes. 

Evaluation: Designated rearing temperature criteria vary significantly between the 

State's Beneficial Use Criteria and interim PACFISH and INFISH Riparian Management 

Objectives (RMOs). Prior to 1995, the only rearing temperature criteria guiding Forest 

direction was the State of Idaho Beneficial Use Criteria for coldwater biota, which 

identified 71.6 degrees as a recommended maximum for maintenance of aquatic lifeWater - 70 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

forms. Adoption of PACFISH and INFISH in 1995, by way of Forest Plan Amendment, 

revised these criteria to a maximum of 64 degrees and 59 degrees within the PACFISH 

(Salmon River Basin) and INFISH (Big and Little Lost River Basins) management areas, 

respectively. The Draft PACFISH EA originally identified a rearing temperature criteria of 

68 degrees, which closely approached the State's value, but this was revised downward 

to its 64 degree value in the final document. The 59 degree INFISH value appears to 

reflect the lower temperature preferences of bull trout, but the selected INFISH EA 

alternative applies these criteria to all waters within the INFISH management area. 

As with rearing temperature criteria, spawning temperature criteria varies significantly 

between Idaho state guidelines, and PACFISH and INFISH RMOs. 

The Idaho Beneficial Use Criteria for salmonid spawning identifies a maximum daily 

temperature of 55 degrees and a mean daily temperature of 48 degrees or less. As 

written, the Idaho State criteria indicates that the specified standards pertain only within 

the period of spawning and incubation for the individual fish species present in the 

stream or stream reach. Generalized spawning and incubation timeframes for various 

salmonid species are included within the State of Idaho Criteria document, but more sitespecific periodicities have been documented by Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Fisheries Biologists, and these localized temporal envelopes were utilized for evaluation 

of seasonal temperature data. Identified to assist with instream flow fish habitat 

evaluations, these periodicities encompass both the earliest and latest dates of observed 

spawning activity on Forest streams. The actual initiation of spawning activity in 

individual streams may be weighted toward either the early or late portions of these 

identified periodicity ranges due to the influences of elevation, basin aspect, shading, 

and other factors upon water temperatures. This variability within the identified 

periodicity dates must be considered when evaluating suitability of observed spawning 

temperature regimes, particularly for Chinook salmon and bull trout. 

In contrast to the State standards, neither PACFISH nor INFISH specifically link 

spawning temperature criteria to the spawning periodicities of target species. Designated 

maxima also deviate from the State standard, with PACFISH identifying a 60 degree 

maxima (revised upward from the original 55 degree value identified in the Draft 

PACFISH EA), and INFISH identifying a 48 degree maxima. As with its adult holding 

criteria, the INFISH spawning/rearing criteria appears to reflect the spawning 

temperature requirements of bull trout, but is applied to all waters within the INFISH 

management area, regardless of species present. 

Appropriateness: Continue to monitor as a Forest Plan requirement. Seasonal water 

temperature regimes are a driving factor shaping the metabolic activity and scope for 

growth of most aquatic organisms. Optimum spawning, incubation and rearing 

temperature ranges have been identified for most fish species. Temperature regimes 

substantially outside these identified ranges can produce deleterious effects upon egg 

development and survival, and reduce metabolic efficiency causing reduction or 

complete cessation of growth. Temperatures in the mid to high seventies can be directly 

lethal to cold water fish species, and persistent temperatures in the low sixties can limit 

bull trout distribution. 

Water temperature monitoring operations are, therefore, considered among the most 

biologically relevant of the various methods utilized to assess fish habitat conditions of 

Forest Streams. Ongoing consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Water - 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

additionally include identification of seasonal temperature regimes in Chinook salmon 

spawning and rearing streams as a principal term and condition of concurrence with 

Biological Assessments for Salmon-Challis National Forest watersheds. 

WATER: Changes in Channel Stability and Riparian Integrity 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Condition Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 Channel Stability; 

Channel Geometry 

Annually to Five 

Years 

Major observed changes in 

streambank stability of channel 

width-to-depth ratio 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon (item #6) and Challis (item #4) Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Evaluation 

Data Source: Watershed Files; Annual watershed and Fisheries Monitoring Report 

Unit of Measure: Percent streambank stability 

Findings: The table below displays a list of locations where streambank stability has 

been monitored in the past 5 years. 

Forestwide Streambank Stability Monitoring Results from 2011 

Middle Salmon- Panther 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Arnett Creek 1R Hull Creek 1R 100 

Beaver Creek 1A Indian Creek 1A 

Big Deer Creek 1A Indian Creek 2A 

Big Deer Creek 2R Iron Creek 1A 

Big Deer Creek 3R Jesse Creek 1R 

Big Hat Creek 1R Lake Creek 1R 

Cabin Creek 1R Lake Creek 2R 

Carmen Creek 1R Little Deep Creek 1R 

Clear Creek 1A Little Deer Creek 1R 

Clear Creek 2A McKim Creek 1R 

Colson Creek 1A Moccasin Creek 1R 

Cow Creek 1R Moose Creek MSP 1R 

Dahlonega Creek 1A Moose Creek NFSR 1A 

Deep Creek 1A Moyer Creek 1A 

Ditch Creek 1R Moyer Creek 2A 

Ditch Creek 2R Musgrove Creek 1A 

East Boulder Creek 1R Napias Creek 1R 53 

Fourth of July Creek 1A Napias Creek 2R 

Garden Creek MSP 1A Napias Creek 3R 

Hat Creek 1R Napias Creek 4R 

Hughes Creek 0A Napias Creek 5R 

Hughes Creek 1A 87.5 NF Iron Creek 1A 

Water - 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Middle Salmon- Panther Cont. 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

NF Salmon River 1A 96.5 Pine Creek 3A 

NF Salmon River 2A Porphyry Creek 1R 

NF Salmon River 3A SF Iron Creek 1A 

NF Salmon River 4A 100 SF Moyer Creek 1A 

Owl Creek 1A Sheep Creek 1A 

Owl Creek 2A Spring Creek 1A 

Owl Creek 3A Spring Creek 2A 

Panther Creek 0A Squaw Creek MSP 1A 

Panther Creek 1A 96 Trail Creek MSP 1A 

Panther Creek 2A Twelvemile Creek 1R 

Panther Creek 3A Twelvemile Creek 2R 

Panther Creek 4A Twin Creek 1A 

Panther Creek 5A 

Wagonhammer Creek 

1R 

Perreau Creek 1R 

Warm Springs Creek 

1R 

Phelan Creek 1R WF Iron Creek 1A 

Pierce Creek 1A 99 Williams Creek 1A 90.5 

Pine Creek 1A SF Williams Creek 1R 85 

Pine Creek 2A Woodtick Creek 1A 

Upper Salmon 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Basin Creek 1A Morgan Creek 3A 83 

Block Creek 1R NF Rankin Creek 1R 

Challis Creek 1A Rankin Creek 1R 

Challis Creek 2A Squaw Creek USR 1A 

Challis Creek 3A Tenmile Creek 1A 

Challis Creek 4A Thompson Creek 1A 

East Pass Creek 1A Trail Creek USR 1R 

Eight Mile Creek 1A Valley Creek 1A 88.5 

Fivemile Creek 1A WF Herd Creek 1A 

Garden Creek USR 1A WF Morgan Creek 1A 85.5 

Herd Creek 1A WF Yankee Fk 1A 

Herd Creek 2A Yankee Fk 1A 

Jordan Creek 0A Yankee Fk 2A 

Jordan Creek 1A Yankee Fk 3A 89 

Jordan Creek 2A Yankee Fk 4A 89 

Jordan Creek 3A Yankee Fk 5A 

Jordan Creek 4A 

Mackay Creek 1A 

Morgan Creek 1A 

Morgan Creek 2A 

Water - 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Upper Middle Fork Salmon 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Beaver Creek 1A 88 

Marsh Creek 1A 93 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Lower Middle Fork Salmon 

Camas Creek 1A 

Camas Creek 2A 

Camas Creek 3A 

Castle Creek 1A 

Hoodoo Creek 1A 

Silver Creek 1A 80.5 

Silver Creek 2A 

WF Camas Creek 1A 

Yellowjacket Creek 1A 

Yellowjacket Creek 2A 

Lemhi River 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Bear Valley Creek 1A Hawley Creek 1R 

Bear Valley Creek 2A Hayden Creek 1A 

Bear Valley Creek 3A Haynes Creek 1R 

Bear Valley Creek 4A Kenney Creek 1R 

Big Bear Creek 1R 98.5 Little Eightmile Creek 1R 

Big Eightmile Creek 1R 

MF Little Timber Creek 

1R 66.5 

Big Eightmile Creek 2R Mill Creek LEM 1R 

Big Timber Creek 1R 

NF Little Timber Creek 

1R 78 

Canyon Creek 1R Pattee Creek 1R 

EF Hayden Creek 1A Reservoir Creek 1R 78.5 

EF Hayden Creek 2R Withington Creek 1R 94 

Pahsimeroi 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Big Creek_PAH_ 1R Pahsimeroi River 1R 

NF Big Creek 1R SF Big Creek 1R 

Big Lost 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Alder Creek 1R EF Big Lost River 1R 

Antelope Creek 1R EF Big Lost River 2R 

Antelope Creek 2R 89.5 EF Big Lost River 3R 57 

Bear Creek 1R 66.5 E.F. Navarre Creek 1R 

Cherry Creek 1R 81.5 Muldoon Creek 1R 91.5 

Water - 74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Big Lost Cont. 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

NF Big Lost River 1R Star Hope Creek 0R 89 

NF Big Lost River 2R 77 Star Hope Creek 1R 

Pass Creek 1R 85.5 Wildhorse Creek 1R 

Little Lost 

Station % Bank 

Stability Station % Bank Stability 

Badger Creek 1R Smithie Fk 1R 

Big Creek LLR 1R 70.5 Squaw Creek LLR 1R 81.5 

Dry Creek 1R Timber Creek 1R 

Iron Creek 1R Wet Creek 0R 90.5 

Little Lost River 1R Wet Creek 1R 

Mill Creek LLR 1R 97 Wet Creek 2R 90 

Variability: Between 35 and 100 sites have been annually monitored across the Forest. 

Evaluation: Trends have not been statistically analyzed but of those sites sampled in 

2011, 77% were greater than the 80% stable PACFISH Riparian Management Objective. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

WATER: Best Management Practices 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency Conditions Which Initiate Further Evaluation 

FP-4 Soil and Water 

BMPs 

Annually to 

Biannually 

Failure to implement Forest Soil and Water Best 

Management Practices; Erosion rates exceeding 

predicted effect of project design 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans. This monitoring item is 

closely related to and tiers to monitoring item Soil FP-2. 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Effectiveness 

Data Source: Watershed Files, annual Watershed and Fisheries Monitoring Report, Soil 

Qualitative Assessments 

Unit of Measure: Field measurements, ocular assessment 

Findings: Project level soil and water best management practices (BMPs) are 

developed through project design for a specific project to eliminate or minimize adverse 

effects. Although implementation of these BMPs is monitored, site specific monitoring 

and evaluation of the effectiveness of specific BMPs is not performed on a continuing 

basis. 

During 2011 period BMPs were reviewed on a variety of projects including fuels 

reduction, prescribed burning, burned are emergency rehabilitation, mining projects, 

wildfires, fish passage improvement projects and stream restoration projects. Visual 

observations were made on the effectiveness of the various BMPs utilized for these 

Water - 75 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

projects. For some of the project reviews ground cover transects were evaluated to 

determine if adequate ground cover was retained after project implementation to protect 

the soil resource, reduce surface erosion and protect water quality in adjacent streams. 

On some projects quantitative sampling of erosion indicators, such as soil compaction 

(bulk density) was performed. Following is a list of the projects that were reviewed by 

year. 

2011 BMP Review 

Antelope Grazing Allotments Rabbit Placer Exploration Renewal 

Black Canyon Fire Road Maint. & Forest Plan Implem. 

Indian Fire Ryder Creek Channel Restoration 

Hughes Creek Fuels Reduction Saddle Fire 

Moose Creek Channel Restoration Salmon/Moose Timber Sale 

Mud Lake Pipeline Salt Fire 

On Forest Range Allotments (Forest – Wide) Withington Creek Salvage Sale 

Variability: Virtually all projects with potential to detrimentally affect soil productivity are 

being monitored and best management practices evaluated at some level appropriate for 

the project. The number and scope of specified project BMPs vary with the size, scope, 

nature, complexity, and setting of proposed projects. Specified measures may be 

straightforward in design or may require additional onsite modification or refinement by 

the project administrator. 

Evaluation: The general results of the monitoring and soil quality assessments indicated 

no unanticipated short-term or long-term alteration of water or soil productivity and that 

best management practices are effective at eliminating or minimizing adverse effects. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. This type of 

resource monitoring is being implemented at the project level. There is a direct 

relationship with the goals, direction, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plans. 

Multidisciplinary reviews of best management practices are an integral component of the 

Forest Planning Process feedback monitoring loop. These annual onsite reviews provide 

the primary mechanism for verification of BMP effectiveness and refinement of project 

planning processes. 

WATER: Maintenance of Minimum Bypass Flows 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

measured Monitoring Frequency Conditions Which Initiate Further Evaluation 

FP-5 Instream Flow As Issues Arise Failure to meet specified 

minimum bypass flow levels 

Monitoring Requirement: Challis Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Forest Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Instream flow (Cubic Feet/Second); Compliance assessment 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for the 2011 reporting period. 

Unit Diversion Sites Surveyed Minimum Bypass Flow 

Maintained? 

Water - 76 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

North Zone No sites surveyed this period Not Applicable 

South Zone No sites surveyed this period Not Applicable 

No bypass flow issues were identified during the period. Consequently, no instream flow 

monitoring operations were specified or conducted. 

Variability: Not Applicable 

Evaluation: Not Applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Stream bypass 

flow monitoring has been identified as an important component of the Challis National 

Forest Watershed Monitoring Plan, and has been reaffirmed as an appropriate 

monitoring item within the combined Salmon and Challis National Forests Watershed 

Program. However, reporting will be dependent upon identification of site-specific flow 

issues. 

WATER: Peak Flow Crest Gauging 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured Monitoring Frequency Conditions Which Initiate Further Evaluations 

FP-7 Stream peak 

flow (cfs) 

Annually as appropriate 

for specific timber harvest 

projects 

Change in R1/R4 channel stability 

rating to poor. 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Evaluation 

Data Source: Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Cubic feet per second (cfs) 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for the 2011 reporting period. 

Unit Watersheds Measured Baseline Flow Post-Harvest Flow 

North Zone No sites surveyed this period Not Applicable Not Applicable 

South Zone No sites surveyed this period Not Applicable Not Applicable 

Variability: Not Applicable 

Evaluation: Not Applicable 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Published 

literature provides guidance with regards to flow increases due to timber harvest; 

however, data is not specific to the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Peak or flood flows 

should be monitored and evaluated as needed to enhance forest databases and peak 

flow calculations. 

WATER: Ocular Evaluation of Erosion Related to Roads and Trails Design 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

Water - 77 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

FP-8 Ocular evidence 

of erosion 

Whenever erosion 

is observed 

Erosion rate exceeding predicted 

effect of project design 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Evaluation 

Data Source: Watershed Files and Road Crew Reports 

Unit of Measure: Not Applicable 

Findings: A total of 908 miles of unauthorized roads were surveyed during the 2011 

reporting period. 

Variability: Not Applicable 

Evaluation: Unauthorized roads may or may not be open or drivable. Access may be 

physically blocked by down or live trees. These roads receive no maintenance, so many 

have drainage and erosion problems. Drainage structures such as ditches, cross-drains, 

waterbars, or dips may have never been constructed or are no longer functioning. 

Unauthorized roads may have design failures at stream crossings often resulting in 

erosion and sediment delivery 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Published 

literature and established BMPs are well tested and provide valuable guidance; 

however, site specific evaluation of their effectiveness is necessary. Evaluation of 

effectiveness given our landtypes, climate and implementation methods are valuable in 

documenting what works and which of our forest practices need to be modified with 

regards to erosion and sediment transport. 

WATER: Special Studies – MgCl Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-9 Water Quality As Needed Dependent upon specifics of study 

Monitoring Requirement: Reporting on special studies occurring on the Forest is not 

identified as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. Summarizing special studies in a 

monitoring report is an opportunity to share information. 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: Watershed Files; Special Study Reports 

Unit of Measure: Not Applicable 

Findings: MgCl Monitoring 

In 2009 eleven locations on stream adjacent to roads treated with MgCl were monitored 

to determine if the MgCl was reaching the streams. The highest level of chloride that 

was detected in the samples was 2 mg/l. The reporting limit based on ESA consultation 

for fish is 400 mg/l. The EPA recommended a water quality chronic criterion for surface 

Water - 78 
 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

water is 230 mg/l. Idaho does not have a Surface Water Standard for Chloride. There is 

no additional information to report for the 2011 reporting period. 

Variability: Not Applicable 

Evaluation: Not Applicable 

Appropriateness: This monitoring requirement should be maintained on an as needed 

basis rather than a specific schedule. As special studies are conducted this report will 

serve as a place to share data obtained in the highlighted studies. 

WATER: Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers- Salmon River, Recreation 

Segment- Water Quality 

SWSR(rec)-4: Water quality within the river will be monitored twice annually at 

approximately the same water levels each year to develop baseline data. 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-10 

SWSR(rec)-4 Water Quality Biannually Deviation from Forest water quality or state water quality standards 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans: Salmon Wild & Scenic 

River Management Plan (Recreation segment) item #4 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Evaluation 

Data Source: Forest Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Dependent on sample parameter 

Findings: Water temperature monitoring is no longer performed as baseline monitoring 

due to time constraints and accessibility. Baseline studies were conducted between 

1970 and 1983 and are located in the forest watershed files. Temperature data is 

obtained at the project level where activities may potentially impact water temperature. 

See findings for FY 2007-2011 under the Water Resources section FP-2. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Not applicable. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. This monitoring 

requirement should be maintained on an as needed basis rather than a specific 

schedule. As potential natural or man-caused threats to water quality arise, monitoring 

should be conducted to best evaluate, monitor, and plan to reestablish the desired water 

quality in the Salmon River. 

WATER: Wild & Scenic Rivers- Salmon River, Recreation Segment- Water 

Quality (Newland Bridge) 

Water - 79 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Discontinued in 2004 report 

SWSR(rec)-5: A baseline station will be developed at the Newland Bridge to monitor 

upstream bacteriological quality. 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-11 

SWSR(rec)-5 

Water Quality 

Bacteriological 

monitoring 

Baseline 

development 

Deviation from Forest water quality or 

State water quality standards 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans: Salmon Wild & Scenic 

River Management Plan (Recreation segment) item #5 

Monitoring Type: Baseline 

Data Source: Forest Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Dependent on sample parameter 

Findings: Baseline studies were conducted between 1970 and 1983 and are located in 

the forest watershed files. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Not applicable. 

Appropriateness: Discontinue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement due to the 

removal of the outhouses along the Salmon River and the pack-it-in-pack-it-out 

requirement on the river. 

WATER: Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers- Salmon River, Wild SegmentWater Quality 

SWSR(wild)-3: Salmon River water quality monitoring will be continued as identified in 

the “Water Quality Monitoring Plan” for the Salmon National Forest. Action will be taken 

to eliminate new pollution sources immediately. 

Monitoring Item Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-12 

SWSR(wild)-3 

Water Quality on the 

mainstem Salmon 

River 

As identified in the 

Water Quality 

Monitoring Plan 

Deviation from Forest water 

quality or State water 

quality standards 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans: Salmon Wild & Scenic 

River Management Plan (Wild segment) item #3 

Monitoring Type: Evaluation 

Data Source: Forest Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Dependent on sample parameter 

Water - 80 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for the 2011 reporting period. No 

samples analyzed this period. Baseline studies were conducted between 1970 and 1983 

and are located in the forest watershed files. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Not applicable. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. This monitoring 

requirement should be maintained on an as needed basis rather than a specific 

schedule. As potential natural or man-caused threats to water quality arise, monitoring 

should be conducted to best evaluate, monitor, and plan to reestablish the desired water 

quality in the Salmon River. 

WATER: Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild & Scenic River Management Plan: 

Water Quality 

MFWSR-1: Continue water quality monitoring program on the Middle Fork River and 

expand to other streams and lakes to establish baseline data for existing and potential 

heavy use areas. 

MFWSR-3: The approved Forest Water Quality Monitoring Plan describes the monitoring 

objectives for the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. To reiterate, water quality monitoring 

was originally established on the Middle Fork River to monitor general trends as a result 

of recreation use. Consistent with the objective found in the wilderness plan, the current 

program direction includes identifying potential problem areas and evaluating sitespecific impacts, while still monitoring general trends in water quality. 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-13 

MFWSR-1, 3 

Water Quality As identified in the 

Water Quality 

Monitoring Plan 

Deviation from Forest water quality 

or State water quality standards 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans: Middle Fork of the Salmon 

Wild & Scenic River Management Plan items #1 and 3. 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Evaluation 

Data Source: Forest Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Dependent on sample parameter 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for the 2011reporting period. No 

samples analyzed this period. Baseline studies were conducted between 1970 and 1983 

and are located in the forest watershed files. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Not applicable. 

Water - 81 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement even though 

baseline data has been obtained. Monitoring should be maintained on an as needed 

basis rather than a specific schedule. As potential natural or man-caused threats to 

water quality arise monitoring should be conducted to best evaluate, monitor, and plan to 

reestablish the desired water quality in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River and other 

streams and lakes. 

WATER: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan: 

Water Quality 

FCWMP- 3: Continue the water quality monitoring program on the Salmon and Middle 

Fork Salmon Rivers and expand to other streams and lakes to establish baseline data 

for existing and potential heavy use areas. 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring Frequency Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-14 

FCWMP- 3 

Water Quality As identified in the 

Water Quality 

Monitoring Plan 

Deviation from Forest water 

quality or State water quality 

standards 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans: Frank Church – River of 

No Return Wilderness Management Plan item #3 

Monitoring Type: Baseline/Evaluation 

Data Source: Forest Watershed Files 

Unit of Measure: Dependent on sample parameter 

Findings: There is no additional information to report for the 2007 through 2011 

reporting period. No samples analyzed this period. Baseline studies were conducted 

between 1970 and 1983 and are located in the forest watershed files. 

Variability: Not applicable. 

Evaluation: Not applicable. 

Appropriateness: Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement even though 

baseline data has been obtained. Monitoring should be maintained on an as needed 

basis rather than a specific schedule. As potential natural or man caused threats to 

water quality arise monitoring should be conducted to best evaluate, monitor, and plan to 

reestablish the desired water quality in the Salmon and Middle Fork Salmon rivers and 

other streams and lakes in the Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness. 

Water - 82 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Weeds: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be Measured Monitoring 

Frequency 

Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWWeeds 

1. Location and acres of 

noxious weed/invasive species 

2. Observation of areas 

previously treated to determine 

effective treatment of target 

weeds and protection of 

nontarget vegetation and 

resources. 

3. Expansion or reduction in 

area and density of 

noxious/invasive weeds. 

Follow National 

Protocol for 

Weed Inventory 

Native plants are 

promoted over exotics. 

Noxious weeds are 

effectively managed 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: FACTS database 

Unit of Measure: Acres 

Findings: 

Wilderness Acres Infested and Treated 

Year 2011 

Acres Infested 11,672 

Acres Treated 3,323 

Variability: The number of acres infested with noxious weeds is highly variable. New 

species are continually identified and while some known infestations are eliminated, 

others show up elsewhere. The number of acres treated each year are variable and a 

based upon available funding for personnel. 

Evaluation: Data is recorded in the FACTS database. Treatments are effective, but the 

number of acres infested and treated is continually changing and usually increasing. 

Appropriateness: Continue trend information as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement 

and a mandatory reporting item. The FACTS database provides the detailed information. 

Weeds - 83 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

WILDLIFE: Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Population 

Trends 

1 to 10 years (varies 

by species) 

Decline in distribution or populations 

Monitoring Requirement: In February 2004 both the Salmon and Challis Land and 

Resource Management Plans were amended to reduce the list of Management Indicator 

Species in order to improve the reliability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of 

monitoring habitat and populations as a result of Forest management. 

The species selected as Management Indicator Species are: 

• Pileated Woodpecker for the coniferous community/habitat type 

• Greater Sage-Grouse for the sagebrush community/habitat type 

• Columbia Spotted Frog for the riparian habitat/community type 

• Bull Trout for the aquatic habitat/community type 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Salmon-Challis National Forest 

District Surveys 

Unit of Measure: Number transects and/or surveys conducted during the identified 

monitoring period. 

Findings: 

Pileated Woodpecker 

The pileated woodpecker has a global ranking of G5; secure: common, widespread, and 

abundant, and a state ranking of S4; apparently secure: uncommon but not rare; some 

cause for long–term concern due to declines or other factors (NatureServe 2010). The 

annual nationwide Breeding Bird Survey is a large-scale, long-term monitoring effort that 

has the objective to assess population changes of many species of birds. Data is 

analyzed at a state-wide level. USGS Breeding Birds Survey data for Idaho, using trend 

estimates, shows a trend of 2.0% from 1966 to 2007 and -0.9% from 1980 to 2007 for 

pileated woodpeckers. The data for Idaho are very imprecise and would not detect a 5% 

per year change (Sauer et al. 2008). 

The Salmon-Challis National Forest established point transects across all Ranger 

Districts in 2004 to establish trend data for pileated woodpeckers. The data from these 

transects is presented below. Although this is not a sufficient amount of data to establish 

a forest-wide base-line or indicate trend for this species, inferences can be drawn. 

Wildlife - 84 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Average Number of Pileated Woodpeckers per Route 

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

2.1

1.7

1.8

2.3

0.43

2.0

2.8

0.2

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Pileated Woodpecker Transects and Individual Counts 2011 

Route Location Date # PIWO 

Challis- Yankee Fork 

Challis Creek Road 6/29 0 

West Fork Morgan 

Little West Fork Morgan 

Yankee Fork Road 7/1 1 

Joe’s Gulch Road 

Lost River 

Sawmill Canyon 6/7 0 

Middle Fork 

Boundary Creek 6/7 0 

6/17 0 

North Fork 

Lick/Sheep/Hughes 6/28 0 

Colson Creek Road 

Salmon River Road 

Leadore 

Lemhi Pass-Upper Kenney Creek 

Alder Creek 

Salmon Cobalt 

Deep-Cobalt 7/7 0 

Copper-Panther 

Total Number of Routes 5 

Total Number of Surveys 5 

Total Number of PIWO 1 

Greater Sage-grouse 

The sage-grouse has a has a global ranking of G4; apparently secure, uncommon but 

not rare, some cause for long–term concern due to declines or other factors, and a state 

ranking of S2; imperiled, at risk because of restricted range, few populations, rapidly 

declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to range-wide extinction or 

Wildlife - 85 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

extirpation. In Idaho, sage-grouse populations declined at an overall rate of 1.5% per 

year from 1965–2003. From 1965 to 1984, the population declined at an average rate of 

3.0%; from 1985–2003 the population had an annual change of 0.1% per year (IDFG 

2005). 

Monitoring of greater sage-grouse populations occurs in cooperation with the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Monitoring is performed by counting the number of male birds occupying leks along an 

established lek route in the early spring. Most of the lek areas are located on BLM land; 

one route is located on the Salmon-Challis NF. Data used to determine trend for the 

Salmon-Challis MIS were derived from the Antelope Creek, Upper Big Lost, Little Lost, 

and Upper Birch Creek lek routes in the Upper Snake region and Upper Lemhi, Leadore 

East, Leadore West, Lower Lemhi, Lower East Pahsimeroi, Lower West Pahsimeroi, 

Upper Pahsimeroi, Little Hat Creek, and Spring Gulch, Dry Gulch, and Carlson Cabin lek 

routes in the Salmon Region. 

Population numbers and lek activity has been very cyclic over the years throughout the 

region. Monitoring data generally indicates a continued increasing trend since 1999. 

Snow conditions during 2008 made accessing many of the leks during peak breeding 

times difficult or impossible. Exact estimates of trend are difficult to make due to missing 

data, and variable monitoring and collection methods from year to year. The figure 

showing trend was derived by averaging the peak number of males on lek routes and 

dividing that by the number of routes surveyed by year (Figure 2). 

Average Number of Male Sage-grouse per Number of Lek Routes 

Wildlife - 86 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Peak Male Sage-grouse Counts by Lek Route 2011 

Count 

Salmon Region 

Upper Lemhi 154 

Leadore East 43 

Leadore West 60 

Lower Lemhi 29 

Lower East 

Pahsimeroi 22 

Lower West 

Pahsimeroi 49 

Upper Pahsimeroi 91 

Deer Gulch nd 

Little Hat Creek 9 

Spring Gulch nd 

Carlson Cabin 19 

Upper Snake Region 

Antelope Creek 66 

Upper Big Lost 29 

Little Lost 80 

Upper Birch Creek 53 

Columbia Spotted Frog 

The spotted frog has a global ranking of G4 and a state ranking of S3/S4, which 

indicates a range of uncertainty about the status, between apparently secure, 

uncommon but not rare, some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other 

factors; and vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively 

few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to 

extirpation. 

Spotted frogs have been observed on all Rangers Districts on the S-CNF, most typically 

in association with vernal pools. Permanent monitoring points were established across 

the Salmon-Challis NF in 2004. Data that is collected includes egg mass numbers and 

frog age counts. Data has been collected each year on most Ranger Districts since 

2004. The number of sites surveyed per Ranger District has varied. The number of egg 

masses detected are averaged based upon the acres of ponds surveyed, as shown in 

the figure below. 

Although there is much data concerning presence of Columbia spotted frogs across the 

Forest and suitable sites have been identified and surveyed for long term monitoring, 

sufficient monitoring data necessary to indicate trend have not yet been accumulated. 

Wildlife - 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Average Number of Spotted Frog Egg Masses per Surveyed Acres 

Spotted Frog Monitoring Sites and Egg Mass Counts 

Location Acres* 2011 Date Egg Mass 

Challis 

Pine Flat Pond #1 0.73 

Block Creek Pond 0.25 5/11 0 

Gooseberry Pond 0.25 5/11 0 

Morgan Creek Summit 0.25 7/7 0 

Pine Flat Pond #2 1.08 

Pine Flat Pond #3 0.59 

Pine Summit Pond 1.44 6/21 0 

Slab Barn Lake 1.16 

Little WF Morgan Ck 4.03 7/7 0 

Challis Creek Beaver Pond 

Complex 0.5 4/11 0 

6/21 0 

Yankee Fork 

Squaw Creek 0.25 6/17 hatch 

Little Bayhorse Pond 2.1 6/21 0 

6/23 5 

Little Bayhorse Lake 16.5 6/23 22 

6/28 0 

Bayhorse Lake 24.6 

Kelly Creek Pond 1.7 

Joe’s Gulch Pond 0.1 

Lost River 

Pond #1 0.5 6/6 12 

6/13 12 

Pond #2 0.5 6/6 0 

6/13 0 

Pond #3 0.5 

Middle Fork 

Boundary Creek Pond 1.98 6/17 9 

6/21 16 

Cape Horn Pond 0.5 6/7 14 

6/17 6 

North Fork 

Hughes Barn Pond 0.7 

2.1

5.5

5.9

4.2 6.2

17.8

4.7 4.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Wildlife - 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Lower Spring Creek 0.05 4/14 1 

4/29 13 

Upper Spring Creek 0.07 4/14 0 

4/29 17 

Donnelly 0.46 

North Fork 

Grove Pond 0.06 7/6 0 

7/13 0 

Quaking Aspen Pond 0.5 7/6 0 

7/13 0 

Wildcat Pond 0.31 

Frank Hall Beaver Pond 0.25 

Purcell Springs 0.05 

Salmon-Cobalt 

Moyer Association Ponds 0.82 

Haynes Creek 0.23 

K-Mountain Pond 1 0.77 5/13 0 

5/20 0 

K-Mountain Pond 2 0.58 5/20 0 

K-Mountain Pond 3 0.23 5/13 0 

5/20 0 

K-Mountain Pond 4 0.02 5/13 0 

5/20 0 

CNF Pond 0.75 

Williams P and P Pond 1.1 

TOTAL 127 

*Estimated size 

Bull Trout 

The bull trout has a global ranking of G3 and a state ranking of S3; vulnerable in the 

nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and 

widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Threats to this 

species include hybridization with brook trout, competitive interactions with rainbow, 

brown, and lake trout; activities that damage riparian areas and cause siltation of 

spawning streams, habitat fragmentation, lack of passage through water diversion 

structures, and habitat loss as a result of climate change (NatureServe 2010). 

A state-wide assessment of bull trout populations found that bull trout in Idaho are 

presently widely distributed, relatively abundant, and apparently stable. The SalmonChallis National Forest is within two bull trout recovery units; the Salmon River, in which 

most of the SCNF occurs, and the Little Lost, which includes the Lost River Ranger 

District. The population of bull trout ≥70 mm in Idaho was estimated to be 1.13 million, 

with over half of those bull trout occurring within the Salmon River Recovery Unit. The 

average density of bull trout ≥70 mm in the Salmon River Recovery Unit was 4.4 fish/100 

m2. In the abundance analysis, it was found that bull trout were most likely to occur in 

survey sites in first through third order streams. There was a significant post-1994 

increase in abundance for all salmonid species. This increase may be attributable to 

stream water temperatures, drought, productivity, or some combination of these or other 

unknown factors (High et al. 2008). 

Wildlife - 89 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Average Abundance of Bull Trout ≥ 70 mm/ 100 m2 

Year South Zone North Zone Entire Forest 

2011 2.4 4.0 3.2 

Average Bull Trout Abundance (Bull Trout ≥ 70 mm /100 m2) 

Variability: Results of the management species indicator species monitoring can vary 

widely from year to year. Factors such as accessibility to monitoring locations, weather 

patterns, precipitation amounts, and landscape-level perturbations such as wildfire all 

contribute to whether individuals are present and in what numbers they occur. 

Evaluation: The 2004 Amendment to the Management Indicator Species list resulted in 

a reduced list of MIS and increased the quality and quantity of data being collected for 

these species. 

Appropriateness: Management Indicator Species monitoring required in the 1982 

implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. 

Continue as a Forest Plan Monitoring requirement. Continue as a Forest Plan monitoring 

requirement. 

WILDLIFE: MIS Habitat Conditions 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-1 Habitat 

Conditions 

1 to 10 years (varies 

by species) 

Any documented change in current 

status 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Wildlife - 90 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness. Management Indicator Species and monitoring 

technique: 

• Pileated Woodpecker for the coniferous community/habitat type: Arcview/GIS 

analysis of satellite vegetation classification imagery 

• Greater Sage-Grouse for the sagebrush community/habitat type: 

Plant Species composition and structural diversity following established 

rangeland monitoring protocols, (including nested frequency, shrub belt 

density transects, etc) 

• Columbia Spotted Frog for the riparian habitat/community type: Water 

Temperature, pH, conductivity 

• Bull Trout for the aquatic habitat/community type: Water Temperature, 

Vegetation Cover and Large Woody Debris, Sediment, and Pool Quality 

Data Source: Ranger Districts and corporate databases 

Unit of Measure: Acres of potential habitat and habitat parameters. 

Findings: No new MIS Habitat Conditions taken in 2011. 

Variability: Results of the management species indicator species habitat monitoring can 

vary widely from year to year since each species has very different habitat measurement 

parameters. 

Evaluation: The 2004 Amendment to the Management Indicator Species list resulted in 

a reduced list of MIS and increased the quality and quantity of data being collected for 

these species’ habitat parameters. 

Appropriateness: Management Indicator Species monitoring required in the 1982 

implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. 

Continue as a Forest Plan Monitoring requirement. 

WILDLIFE: Threatened or Endangered Species 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate 

Further Evaluations 

FP-1 Habitat and 

Population Trends 

Annually to two to 

five year intervals Any change from current status 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Effectiveness 

Data Source: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Unit of Measure: Number transects and/or surveys conducted during the identified 

monitoring period. 

Findings: Presently, terrestrial wildlife species listed as Threatened or Endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act do not occur on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Appropriateness: The 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and Forest 

Plan Amendment requires unoccupied forests to consider Lynx habitat needs by 

Wildlife - 91 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items	 FY11 

performing annual winter track monitoring and summer habitat evaluations for potential 

occurrences of Lynx and documentation of prey base (primarily snowshoe hare and Pine 

squirrel) habitat areas. Ongoing winter track and camera surveys are also warranted for 

continuation, for species of special concern like wolverine and fisher which, while 

presently listed as R4 sensitive species, are under consideration for potential ESA listing 

as well. 

	 FY-11 winter track surveys were completed by snowmobile to inventory and monitor 

Lynx Analysis Units for potential occurrences of Lynx as well as their primary winter 

prey, Pine Squirrels and Snowshoe hares. Five winter track surveys were performed 

on the North Zone and three were performed on the South Zone. Numerous 

locations of Lynx prey species were identified and recorded, however no Lynx tracks 

were discovered. 

	 On January 26, 2012 Idaho Department of Fish & Game personnel investigated and 

released a wild male Lynx that was caught in a Bobcat trap on the Salmon/Cobalt 

Ranger District. This Lynx was determined to be a pure, wild male based upon DNA 

analysis from hair and scat samples, performed by the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station laboratory in Missoula, Montana. As of 5/9/12 the lab was still working on 

developing a consolidated DNA data-base for sampled Lynx populations in both the 

northern and southern Rockies. Once this data-base is assembled, they will then be 

able to possibly determine the reference population from which this individual may 

have originated. i.e. If it may have come from a Canadian based population in the 

northern Rockies, or possibly from a Colorado based population, in the southern 

Rockies. Decadal cycles of hare abundance have been documented within the 

northern boreal forest ecosystems over the past 50 years or more, which affect the 

distribution of both Lynx and Snowy Owls. During periods of declines in hare 

populations, emigrations from northern latitudes to southern latitudes have been 

observed as both species extend their ranges over a larger area, in search of prey 

bases. Presently, the historic pattern of cyclic hare abundance would indicate that we 

may be in a period of hare declines in northern portions of their range, which would 

support the possibility of range extensions to more southern areas during this period. 

The recent wide ranging extensions of Snowy Owls in the USA, sometimes as far 

south as Oklahoma, would tend to indicate such a situation is presently occurring for 

Lynx as well. These trends may be the basis for reports of Lynx track sightings and 

now a Lynx, on the Salmon-Challis Forest during the last two years. Being the first 

recording occurrence of Lynx on the forest within 20-30 years, the need to continue 

monitoring for this species is especially important at this time; not to mention meeting 

the requirements of the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Forest 

Plan amendment. 

Wildlife - 92 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

(Beth Waterbury, IDFG photo) 

WILDLIFE: Habitat Improvement Accomplishments 

Monitoring 

Item Activity to be Measured Monitoring Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-2 Habitat Improvement 

Accomplishment Annual N/A 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon and Challis Forest Plans 

Monitoring Type: Implementation 

Data Source: Annual Wildlife Report, Management Attainment Report 

Unit of Measure: Number of improvement projects and acres 

Findings: The table below illustrates wildlife habitat improvements performed for 2011 

in response to Forest Plan Goals and Objectives. 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement - Structures and Acres 

Year Structures Implemented Acres Treated 

Forest Plan Goal/Year 28 1,395 

2011 0 NZ=3,025 SZ=200 Total 3,225 

Variability: The ability to perform habitat improvement projects varies from year to year, 

depending on the level of integrated planning for incorporation of wildlife goals and 

objectives into projects of other resources like range, timber, fuels and recreation. 

Evaluation: The development of wildlife habitat structures by either the Wildlife program 

itself or through integration of Wildlife habitat improvements (e.g. creation of potential 

Wildlife - 93 
 

Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

den sites, brush piles, upland bird guzzlers and riparian Sage grouse brood rearing 

areas in association with rangeland water developments, marking of nest trees/snags 

etc. in projects of other resource programs has been very limited in recent years. 

Currently, most accomplishments for wildlife habitat have been in association with 

prescribed burns performed by the timber and fuels program. 

The definitions for claiming habitat acres have recently been changed to include acres 

treated by projects of other resource programs that improve wildlife habitat as well. 

(However, only those acres benefiting wildlife, as determined in the NEPA process and 

RoD, can be claimed.) Therefore, Forest Plan decisions for performance of “post project 

monitoring” still need to be performed in order to determine the actual results and 

effectiveness of integrated projects. The evaluation, construction and/or maintenance of 

other types of wildlife habitat management structures (riparian exclosures) and past 

habitat treatments (e.g. aspen) has also been limited due to their lower priority rankings 

in development of forest-wide workplan priorities. 

Appropriateness: It is appropriate and necessary to continue monitoring and reporting 

the number of structures developed and habitat acres improved in order to track and 

validate the degree to which Wildlife habitat improvements are being accomplished in 

response to Forest Plan goals, objectives and decisions. 

WILDLIFE: Standard and Guideline Performance 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to Be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency 

Conditions Which Initiate Further 

Evaluations 

FP-3 

Standard and 

Guideline 

Performance 

Annually for two 

major projects per 

year 

Significant deviation from prescribed 

parameters 

Monitoring Requirement: Salmon Forest Plan 

Monitoring Type: Post Project Implementation Monitoring 

Data Source: Ranger Districts 

Unit of Measure: Number of projects significantly deviating from the wildlife standards 

and guidelines contained in the Salmon NF Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Standard and Guideline Performance Monitoring 

Year Function Number/Location Activity 

2011 Wildlife NZ=10 SZ=0 Annual monitoring 

Findings: FY-11 North Zone monitoring included the monitoring and maintenance of ten 

habitat projects on the Leadore Ranger District in order to maintain their functionality for 

mitigation of impacts on behalf of fish and wildlife resources. These projects included the 

Bear Valley Cr. riparian exclosure and 160 acre TES species recovery area (a former 

private inholding acquired by the WFRP program through a Congressional appropriation 

from the Land & Water Conservation Fund); the lower and upper Big 8 Mile Cr. TES 

species and riparian recovery areas; plus the Hood Gulch, Irish Boy Spring, 

Kadletz/Bear Valley, Little 8-Mile, Grove Cr. Quaking Aspen, West Fk. of Jake’s Canyon, 

and Wildcat Pond riparian species special management areas. 

Wildlife - 94 
Chapter 2 Monitoring Items FY11 

Appropriateness: It is appropriate and necessary to continue this monitoring element in 

order to validate attainment of Forest Plan Wildlife program goals, objectives and 

decisions for demonstrating compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines; 

especially for mitigation measures required through project NEPA analyses, Endangered 

Species Act Section-7 consultations and their Records of Decision, Biological 

Assessments, and Biological Opinions. 

Wildlife: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan: 

Native populations and key habitat components are not impaired 

Monitoring 

Item 

Activity to be 

Measured 

Monitoring 

Frequency Monitoring Objective 

FC-RONRWWildlife 

1. Percent of 

forage 

utilization on 

selected 

transects within 

seasonally 

important wild 

ungulate 

habitats; 

2. Ratio of 

males, females, 

and young in 

wild ungulate 

populations. 

Every 5 years Native populations and key habitat 

components are not impaired 

Monitoring Requirement: Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management 

Plan 

Monitoring Type: Implementation/Evaluation 

Data Source: IDFC species management plan (varies by species) and paired plot 

transects within seasonally important wild ungulate habitats. 

Unit of Measure: Forage utilization and population counts 

Findings: There have been no ungulate forage utilization transects completed in the 

FCRONRW. IDFG conducts ungulate surveys and publishes the results in annual 

reports. 

Variability: Not applicable 

Evaluation: Not applicable 

Appropriateness: Discontinue as a Forest Plan monitoring requirement. 

Wildlife - 95